UAH Global Temperature Update for November 2017:+0.36 deg. C

December 1st, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for November, 2017 was +0.36 deg. C, down substantially from the October, 2017 value of +0.63 deg. C:

Global area-averaged lower tropospheric temperature anomalies (departures from 30-year calendar monthly means, 1981-2010). The 13-month centered average is meant to give an indication of the lower frequency variations in the data; the choice of 13 months is somewhat arbitrary… an odd number of months allows centered plotting on months with no time lag between the two plotted time series. The inclusion of two of the same calendar months on the ends of the 13 month averaging period causes no issues with interpretation because the seasonal temperature cycle has been removed as has the distinction between calendar months.

The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 23 months are:

YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPICS
2016 01 +0.55 +0.72 +0.38 +0.85
2016 02 +0.85 +1.18 +0.53 +1.00
2016 03 +0.76 +0.98 +0.54 +1.10
2016 04 +0.72 +0.85 +0.58 +0.93
2016 05 +0.53 +0.61 +0.44 +0.70
2016 06 +0.33 +0.48 +0.17 +0.37
2016 07 +0.37 +0.44 +0.30 +0.47
2016 08 +0.43 +0.54 +0.32 +0.49
2016 09 +0.45 +0.51 +0.39 +0.37
2016 10 +0.42 +0.43 +0.42 +0.47
2016 11 +0.46 +0.43 +0.49 +0.38
2016 12 +0.26 +0.26 +0.27 +0.24
2017 01 +0.32 +0.31 +0.34 +0.10
2017 02 +0.38 +0.57 +0.19 +0.07
2017 03 +0.22 +0.36 +0.09 +0.05
2017 04 +0.27 +0.28 +0.26 +0.21
2017 05 +0.44 +0.39 +0.49 +0.41
2017 06 +0.21 +0.33 +0.10 +0.39
2017 07 +0.29 +0.30 +0.27 +0.51
2017 08 +0.41 +0.40 +0.41 +0.46
2017 09 +0.54 +0.51 +0.57 +0.54
2017 10 +0.63 +0.67 +0.59 +0.47
2017 11 +0.36 +0.33 +0.38 +0.26

The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through November 2017 remains at +0.13 C/decade.

The UAH LT global anomaly image for November, 2017 should be available in the next few days here.

The new Version 6 files should also be updated in the coming days, and are located here:

Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt


2,641 Responses to “UAH Global Temperature Update for November 2017:+0.36 deg. C”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. ossqss says:

    Quite a significant drop in 30 days globally. Is this corralated to ENSO?

    • Des says:

      You can’t determine a meaningful correlation from just two data points.

    • David L. Hagen says:

      IPCC’s First 1990 1992 report expected its Business as Usual case would result in 0.3 C/decade (0.2C/decade to 0.5C/decade). (Working Group 1 Executive summary item 3.)
      Roy Spencer above reports the average 38 year UAH “linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through November 2017 remains at +0.13 C/decade.”

      Trends greater than 30 years have been considered “climate”.
      The actual 38 year trend of 0.13 C/decade is only 43% of the IPCC’s predicted 0.3 C/decade Business as Usual trend!

      • Joel says:

        Why focus on 25+ year old documents? Why not instead look at more recent IPCC publications?

        The growth of fossil fuel emissions has not kept up with the BAU growth projections of 25 years ago. There has been a global shift that has reduced emissions growth, which would correlate with less warming than predicted by BAU growth models. Simple, neh?

        From the 2007 report:
        “Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections.”

        The observed trend of 0.2 is from a different data set to the satellite trend of 0.13, but 0.13 and 0.2 aren’t as far apart as climate change denialists would like to believe.

        On a global scale, the challenge of adapting to a (for example) 2 degree temperature rise in 150 years is not too dissimilar to the challenge of adapting in 100 years. An extra 50 years would be nice, but it’s still an immense challenge. And there’s no guarantee the warming would end there.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          “Why focus on 25+ year old documents? Why not instead look at more recent IPCC publications?”

          Yes, only look at the IPCC documents that fit the latest scare tactic.

          And there’s no guarantee the pseudoscience would end there.

          • Jake says:

            “And theres no guarantee the pseudoscience would end there.”

            Nailed it! Because you and your “skeptic” friends would rather follow a pseudoscientist, Dr. Roy Spencer who feels peer review isn’t worth his time than actually learn from real scientist that have long ago moved on from trying to “prove” climate change and have for decades now being looking at how its impacts will be manifest. But hey all you old white men on this site with investments in coal and oil will never change. We just need you to roll over so the next generation can get on with trying to fix all the baby boomers problems…thanks

    • Jake says:

      I didn’t know we now do significance on two points over the preceeding 100-odd points…
      Amazing. Everytime I come onto Dr. Roy Skeptical’s website I learn some new amazing way people are proving scientific facts. Peer-review is for chumps. Who needs large data set when you have two data points that form a perfect story line for your narrow minds?

  2. Richard M says:

    Just as expected the lagged influence of the El Nino conditions last spring and summer has ended and the satellite temperature anomaly drops like a rock. This will of course be denied by climate alarmists.

    • Bindidon says:

      ‘…and the satellite temperature anomaly drops like a rock.’

      Typical blah blah of stubborn skeptics thinking all people who do not share their ideas are by definition alarmists.

      https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/table.html
      https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/nina34.data
      http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
      http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/index.shtml#tabs=SOI

      Drops like a rock… so what.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…”Typical blah blah of stubborn skeptics thinking all people who do not share their ideas are by definition alarmists”.

        And you are a typical alarmist, referencing the corrupt NOAA. Why would you reference temperature data that has been fudged by NOAA, who discarded over 75% of the global data then used a climate model on the remaining less than 25% to SYNTHESIZE the data they discarded?

        Why have you failed to acknowledge the confidence levels provided by NOAA, which they are required to provide since their temperature database is now statistically derived? They declared 2014 a record warming year based on a confidence level of 48%. Only charlatans would try such a ploy.

        NASA GISS, who get their data from NOAA, have been known to use confidence levels in the 30% range. NASA needs to distance themselves from those climate modelers before they drag NASA’s good name into the mud.

        • Nate says:

          Gordon, we have heard this NOAA did yada yada from you at least 50 times. It lost all of our interest around the 10th time. Pls try something new..

          • Anto says:

            Nate, are you saying that you’re bored with the truth? Try something new? Like what, exactly?

          • Nate says:

            His statements are highly repetitive, boring indeed, and have been debunked countless times. Each time- he simply covers his ears and says ‘I cant hear you!’.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Nate…”Gordon, we have heard this NOAA did yada yada from you at least 50 times”.

            You’ll hear it 50 more times as long as alarmists like Bindidon keep pushing corrupt NOAA data to counter the data in the NOAA satellite data used by UAH.

            The NOAA satellite data is not tampered with using climate models. Anyone who defends such chicanery does not understand science. If you have 6000 reporting surface data stations and you receive that data, then you slash over 75% of that data and use less than 25% of it to synthesize the lost data, something is seriously wrong.

            Bindidon has defended that nonsense then has the temerity to come on this blog and criticize the UAH data with comparison to the fudged NOAA surface data.

            Alarmists are known to troll skeptic blogs introducing uncertainty using pseudo-science. Why should I sit by and watch him do it?

          • Nate says:

            “keep pushing corrupt NOAA ”

            Your conspiratorial mindset means you are unable to process what the legitimate reasons for NOAAs adjustments are.

            These legit reasons have been explained to you ad nauseum. But, you seem immune to counterfacts.

            At best, the discussion is a stalemate.

            Time to be done.

          • Nate says:

            My suggestion, ignore NOAA, pay attention to other surface data. They show = or > warming.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            nate…”His statements are highly repetitive, boring indeed, and have been debunked countless times”.

            I pointed anyone interested to the NOAA website where they admitted to slashing over 75% of the surface data they receive. I have yet to see the debunking you claim.

            I also pointed anyone interested to the chiefio site where he has systematically revealed NOAA slashing close to 90% of surface stations since the 1990s.

          • David Appell says:

            Give us the link to the specific page, Gordon.

          • RWturner says:

            I suppose people like Nate also believe that the only law Al Capone ever broke was tax evasion because that’s all he was ever found guilty of. If Karl et al. want to look innocent, they could start by complying with Congress’ request for internal deliberations, but instead we’re fed the B.S. that secretive internal deliberations within NOAA are necessary for scientific research. Sounds like some sophistry a defense lawyer would come up with and something only a rube would believe.

          • Nate says:

            RW. I like your guilty until proven innocent mindset. Should apply to Trump, perhaps?

            Almost as funny as Roy Moore’s spokeswoman reminding everyone that there were lots of people who have NOT accused him of sexual misconduct….

        • Svante says:

          Why have they not been convicted?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…”https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/committee-probes-allegations-politicization-noaa-study…”

            Because of nonsense like this:

            https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/committee-probes-allegations-politicization-noaa-study

            “Over the course of the committees oversight, NOAA refused to comply with the inquiries. This culminated in the issuance of a congressional subpoena, with which NOAA also failed to comply. During the course of the investigation, the committee heard from whistleblowers who confirmed that, among other flaws in the study, it was rushed for publication to support President Obamas climate change agenda”.

            I should add that initial requests by Lamar Smith for info from NOAA were blocked by the Obama administration. That leads me to think NOAA and the Obama admin colluded to rewrite the IPCC claim of a warming hiatus from 1998 – 2012.

            Why should NOAA fail to comply if they are innocent? This is a US government ordering a US funded scientific organization to release information and NOAA has failed to cooperate.

            This smacks of the Climategate email incident where the head of Had.crut, Phil Jones, was seen advising cronies to block efforts of Steve McIntyre to file an FOI request to the UK government, forcing Had.crut to release their data for independent audit.

            Appell has called me a liar on this several times but here we have a US government investigating the same claims I am making and Appell calls me a liar.

            That raises questions in my mind as to what Appell really represents. He doesn’t even have the guts to make it clear that he has called me a liar, he now blames it on Barry.

            Unfortunately Roy’s blog has become riddled with alarmist trolls.

          • David Appell says:

            You are a liar, Gordon. That’s been firmly established here.

            And you have never once defended your claims against barry’s numerous rebuttal.

          • barry says:

            Gordon,

            I pointed anyone interested to the NOAA website where they admitted to slashing over 75% of the surface data they receive. I have yet to see the debunking you claim.

            I have provided it numerous times (about 20) specifically for you, and you have never dealt with it. I now consider you to by lying about this.

            NOAA did not say they had “slashed”, removed or cut the data. This is entirely your invention.

            Chiefio, who you have cited on this, says specifically that he did not claim that NOAA deleted data. I’ve quoted that for you, and you’ve responded to it once by backtracking – but keep coming back with the same old LIE.

            NOAA did not have the data to slash. For the umpteenth time, they retrospectively added data that is not available to them electronically – millions of hand-written records. This project finished at the end of the 1990s, even while NOAA was still receiving the data from 1500 weather stations via the automated process.

            THEY DID NOT SLASH, CUT, REMOVE OR DELETE ANY DATA.

            You. Are. A. Liar.

          • Nate says:

            Gordon is going to again ignore these counter-facts for the 20th time. He will have no answer for them.

            Then he will say ‘I have yet to see the debunking’

            He will rinse and post the same smelly laundry in the next posting.

        • David Appell says:

          As barry always points out here, Gordon is lying (again).

          Gordon, you’d fit right into the Trump administration.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…”Drops like a rock so what”.

        You don’t say that when the temps rise temporarily and suddenly. You claim it as clear evidence of anthropogenic warming.

        Furthermore, you are in denial of the IPCC claim that the 15 year period from 1998 – 2012 showed no significant warming. The IPCC called it a warming hiatus. You defended NOAA when they retroactively rewrote the record to erase the flat trend, using their junk math.

        • Des says:

          “You dont say that when the temps rise temporarily and suddenly. You claim it as clear evidence of anthropogenic warming.”

          I challenge you to link to a post where he has said anything like “THIS particular month’s anomaly is clear evidence of anthropogenic warming”.

      • Fred from Canuckistan says:

        Careful dude. Your Warmunist Syndrome is acting up today and you are making a fool of yourself.

    • David Appell says:

      Richard: why do El Nino years keep getting warmer?

  3. TheFinalNail says:

    A drop, but still the second warmest November on this record.

    TFN

  4. richard verney says:

    La Nina conditions appear to be just developing, and the satellite appears to be less sensitive to La Nina, than it is to El Nino, perhaps because with El Nino increased convection takes warm air up to the altitude at which the satellite takes its sampling.

    There is of course a significant lag between cold ENSO conditions and the satellite responding, so it is likely that November is not yet significantly influenced by La Nina, just a lagged erosion from the El Nino highs.

    If La Nina strengthens, and there is a full blown La Nina, maybe this will really show up in January/February data next year

    • Richard M says:

      I don’t expect the satellite data to really see much of the La Nina until at least February.

      In addition, the +AMO is still keeping Arctic sea ice low enough to vent a lot of energy over the NH winter months.

      Finally, the PDO still hasn’t revert back to a negative profile which will also promote a higher GAST.

      • Des says:

        “PDO still hasnt revert back to a negative profile”

        Why do you assume that it will”??

        • Richard M says:

          It usually does once you further into a La Nina.

          • Des says:

            PDO stands for Pacific *DECADEL* Oscillation. It oscillates on DECADEL time scales. It does not switch every time you get El Nino or La Nina.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            “des” stands for “Desperately Evading Science”.

            It just means he oscillates between “wrong” and “mostly wrong”.

            It’s fun to watch.

          • Richard M says:

            Des, you obviously have never examined the PDO. The positive and negative phases are essentially an average of the conditions in the Pacific over decades. The actual profile during any year, however, is more dependent on ENSO.

            Bob Tisdale was one of the first to point this out. Maybe you should read some of his work. He thinks that the phases are simply an after effect of ENSO and there is nothing else to them.

            So, yeah, as far as I know it has switched every time there is an ENSO event. If it didn’t this time that would be very interesting.

          • barry says:

            Investigations of links between PDO and ENSO is in the literature well before (1990s) Tisdale took up blogging (2008).

          • Richard M says:

            Barry, the PDO wasn’t defined until 1997. I think there’s a good reason you didn’t post any references to support your assertion. It is obviously a complete lie.

          • barry says:

            Perhaps you should do a simple google before posting assertions.

          • Richard M says:

            Barry, all of those links are from the late 1990s exactly as I stated.

  5. TLM says:

    Typo: second word on the second line should be November.

    • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

      There were 44 consecutive months with a negative ONI following the 1998 el nino. Something similar could happen again. If so, would make an interesting comparison.

      • Des says:

        They are predicting only a weak and short-lived La Nina.

        • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

          Here’s a prediction for negative values (not necessarily la nina) through July:

          http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif

          • Des says:

            Yes – and the ensemble mean stays weak throughout that period. And given that three consecutive months of -1.0 or below are required to qualify for a “moderate” La Nina, only a few ensemble members suggest we will reach moderate levels. And since the average La Nina lasts about 15 months, this looks like the most likely scenario is a short La Nina, with La-Nina-like conditions lasting a bit longer.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Des

            I think there’s a reasonable chance for an extended negative/neutral and or la nina period. There’s historical precedent, starting in the following years:

            1954: 34 consecutive months
            1973: 38 ”
            1983: 34 ”
            1998: 44 ”
            2007: 25 ”
            2010: 25. “

          • Richard M says:

            It appears Des is scared of what might happen with a La Nina. Otherwise, he wouldn’t be so nervous. ENSO models have been famously wrong and were predicting El Nino just 6 months ago.

            Most people would like to see a real La Nina to balance out the recent El Nino and give us an idea of whether this EL Nino has led to a step up in global temperature as happened in 1998-2001. Either way is not good for alarmists.

            If it does then they need to explain the mechanism and if it doesn’t then the pause will have resumed and any chance of dangerous warming from CO2 would be extremely doubtful.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Richard

            You’re not making sense. If the TLT/surface is warmer during the next la nina than previous ones, you think this is bad news for the AGW argument?

          • Richard M says:

            Isaac, I didn’t say a word about the temperature during the next La Nina. Try again.

          • barry says:

            Most people would like to see a real La Nina to balance out the recent El Nino and give us an idea of whether this EL Nino has led to a step up in global temperature as happened in 1998-2001. Either way is not good for alarmists.

            If it does then they need to explain the mechanism and if it doesnt then the pause will have resumed and any chance of dangerous warming from CO2 would be extremely doubtful.

            Ha! Great positioning – no matter what happens, it cannot possibly be due to AGW.

            This is the skeptic version of every weather anomaly, hot or cold, being ties to global warming.

            Low temps during a la Nina do not in any way necessitate a return to to the pause. I’ve calculated it out to 2020, and the odds are extremely low that the temp trend since 1998 will flatline.

            What’s that? You want me to calculate from 2002? Or from 2010? Or from 2016?

            Whatever cherry-pick it takes to satisfy the preconception I suppose.

          • Richard M says:

            Well Barry it is a theory you support and as such it is your responsibility to explain how it operates. I’ve pointed out your problem. You may not like it but that is tough.

            If all you have is warming every 20 or so years which occurs precisely after a super El Nino then I think you have a problem. What is funny is all you can do is blame skeptics for pointing out the problem yet you offer no reasonable answers.

            I think there’s a word for that …. oh yeah …. denial.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Richard M

            Great minds think alike.

            The Denver Broncos won the super bowl in 1998 and 1999. This was precisely followed by a step-up in global temperatures.

            Guess who won the super bowl in 2016? Yep, the Denver Broncos. And once again we’re seeing a step up in global temperatures. Coincidence? I think not!

            I’ve challenged my warmist friends to come up with an explanation, but they have failed to do so. Instead, they ridicule me for pointing out the problem.

            “I think theres a word for that . oh yeah . denial”

          • barry says:

            Richard,

            Your comment was non-responsive to my point. That’s a hallmark of… denial.

            Let me show you how responding to a point works.

            If all you have is warming every 20 or so years which occurs precisely after a super El Nino then I think you have a problem.

            My problem is that if global temps goes up every 20 years by, say, 0.1C, then 2000 years ago it was 10 C cooler than today.

        • Richard M says:

          6 Months ago “They” were predicting El Nino. I wouldn’t put much value in anything from “They”.

          • barry says:

            Who is this “they?” The institutes monitoring and forecasting ENSO events forecast their probability. They never 100% ‘predict’ what will happen.

          • Richard M says:

            And the probabilities put forward favored El Nino. That is what I said. Face-palm.

          • barry says:

            So you have problems with English.

            Prediction: “the act of saying what will happen in the future”

            Probability: “the extent to which something is likely to happen or be the case”

          • Richard M says:

            I have problems with pedantic nonsense.

      • I do not regard BOM highly. The top layer of BOM are Climate alarmists. I find this site better for SOI
        https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/seasonalclimateoutlook/southernoscillationindex/30daysoivalues/

      • Ren from the longpaddock web site
        “Years in history with the same SOI phase over OctNov

        1878, 1879, 1880, 1883, 1886, 1892, 1893, 1894, 1908, 1909, 1910, 1916, 1917, 1921, 1922, 1924, 1928, 1929, 1933, 1935, 1938, 1943, 1948, 1950, 1955, 1961, 1962, 1964, 1970, 1971, 1975, 1988, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2017”

        I have not looked at all the years but I know around my place in Queensland there was very heavy rain and floods in 1893, 1974-5 and 2010-2011. Dec. 2010 had an all time record rainfall of 668mm which filled dams to overflowing. There floods in Brisbane in Jan 2011 (a normal wet month with average of 250mm but then received 566mm) with loss of life due to government inaction on release of water listening to climate alarmists predicting drought.

        The record of accurate data on SOI and rainfall (which is now being messed up by inaccurate electronic instruments) is available for anyone to note the cycles of weather.

        • A bit more information -after a very dry 9 months the combined Oct & Nov rain at 650mm is 2nd or 3rd highest in 125 years and this month have had already more than 100mm with local flooding. So I suggest that La Nina is here.
          Another, point of interest there is a class action case against the Government water authority over the 2011 floods. 100’s of millions involved.

  6. Bindidon says:

    ‘… the +AMO is still keeping Arctic sea ice low enough…’

    This reminds me all the stuff submitted ad nauseam at WUWT concerning a pretended correlation of AMO with Arctic sea extent.

    Here is a chart showing absence of this correlation, within both the monthly anomalies and their 60 month running means:

    4GP.ME/bbtc/1512153796133.jpg

    Of course the Colorado sea ice extent data was inverted here to produce a plot comparable to the two other ones.

    It is visible that Arctic sea ice extent has since 1979 rules independent of any oscillation. It shows linearity akin to constant warming, whichever its origin, Mankind or Nature or both.

    All data are anomalies wrt UAH climatology and scaled, again to obtain comparable data.

    A correlation of AMO with something indeed exists: but that is one with UAH6.0, for reasons nobody was able to correctly explain until now.

    Sources

    UAH: http://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
    AMO: http://tinyurl.com/y8gv67w3
    SIE: http://tinyurl.com/p9v5eby

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”This reminds me all the stuff submitted ad nauseam at WUWT concerning a pretended correlation of AMO with Arctic sea extent”.

      Pretended???

      A study by Tsonis et al, which covered a century of temperature data and correlated the temps to the phases of ocean oscillations like the AMO, PDO, ENSO, AO, etc., showed conclusively that global temps are synced to the phases of those oscillation. When they are in phase, global temps rise and when out of phase they drop.

      Tsonis advised that we put away out theories on AGW and begin studying the ocean oscillations as a source of warming/cooling. Based on the scant amount of warming we’ve had since 1980, I think he’s onto something.

      There is ample evidence, even from NOAA, that Arctic ice is affected by two main circulations in the Arctic Ocean, The Transpolar Drift and the Beaufort Gyre. The Drift sweeps ice west to east, right into the North Atlantic. It also warms temperatures occasionally at the North Pole while the rest of the Arctic is -30C or below.

      The ice melting would depend on the AMO, which governs North Atlantic temps.

      • Svante says:

        Why did he have to detrend his data?

        “Prior to analysis, all raw indices were linearly detrended”.

        Which line numbers should I check again?

        https://tinyurl.com/y9ya3wgw

        • Bindidon says:

          Because the goal is here, as usual, to pretend that an integration of the cyclic behaviors of natural events explains the temperature increase using exclusively natural factors.

          It is the same nonsense as if you would pretend that temperature increase is solely due to anthropogenic factors.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Except natural is real, and anthropogenic is unreal.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            binny…”Because the goal is here, as usual, to pretend that an integration of the cyclic behaviors of natural events explains the temperature increase using exclusively natural factors”.

            Natural events do explain the warming, why would anyone concoct a lame theory like AGW unless they had a political agenda for it?

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “Natural events do explain the warming.”

            Prove it.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          svante…”Why did he have to detrend his data?”

          That’s not the study to which I referred. This is the study, Tsonis et al 2007:

          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL030288/full

          • Svante says:

            Conclusion:
            “the climate shifted after the 1970s event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend.”

      • David Appell says:

        “When they are in phase, global temps rise and when out of phase they drop.”

        Within a long-term warming trend.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        “A study by Tsonis et al, which covered a century of temperature data and correlated the temps to the phases of ocean oscillations like the AMO, PDO, ENSO, AO, etc., showed conclusively that global temps are synced to the phases of those oscillation.”

        False.

        This is how Tsonis et al ends:

        “[Their finding] …suggests an alternative hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend.”

        Tsonis, A. A., K. Swanson, and S. Kravtsov (2007), A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts, Geophys.Res. Lett., 34, L13705, doi:10.1029/2007GL030288.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”False. This is how Tsonis et al ends:”

          Cherry picking at it’s best, the hallmark of cheating alarmists.

          You have deliberately cherry picked information presented as an alternate hypothesis for warming since 1970. Even at that, your cherry picked quote upholds the ‘hypothesis’ of a climate shift due to ocean oscillations.

          This is how it ends in my ‘FULL’ version:

          “The above observational and modeling results suggest the following intrinsic mechanism of the climate system leading to major climate shifts. First, the major climate modes tend to synchronize at some coupling strength. When this synchronous state is followed by an increase in the coupling strength, the network’s synchronous state is destroyed and after that climate emerges in a new state. The whole event marks a significant shift in climate. It is interesting to speculate on the climate shift after the 1970s event. The standard explanation for the post 1970s warming is that the radiative effect of greenhouse gases overcame shortwave reflection effects due to aerosols [Mann and Emanuel, 2006]. However, comparison of the 2035 event in the 21st century simulation and the 1910s event in the observations with this event, suggests an alternative hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend”.

    • Richard M says:

      One shouldn’t expect any kind of short term correlation between the ice extent and short term temperature swings. The ice will react very slowly over time. It is a cumulative effect or in a sense a smoothed response which is exactly what your graph shows. Short term effects in ice are driven mostly by wind.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Richard M…”Short term effects in ice are driven mostly by wind”.

        The Arctic is a mammoth expanse of moving ice in the Arctic winter. No one has ever gotten out there and thoroughly checked old ice versus new ice. Satellites cannot do that accurately and most Arctic weather and ice studies are based on models.

        In the 1940s, the Canadian RCMP boat, the St. Roch, under Captain Henry Larsen, made the first two-way traverse of the Arctic Ocean via the Northwest Passage. On the first leg from Vancouver on the west coast of Canada to Halifax on the east coast, they were hemmed in for two years in the Arctic by the ice. On the return leg a couple of years later, they sailed straight through in 87 days.

        Larsen explained that the Arctic ice is subject to winds and currents in the ocean and is highly unpredictable.

        I have read several stories by Arctic explorers ranging from the 1980s. All of them were able to walk on solid ice from the north shore of Canada to the North Pole.

        One of them, Pat Farmer, reported from a Russian station near the NP that the ice was 3 metres thick at the Pole in March. Another Ranulph Fiennes, made it to the Pole just as the ice over the Pole was breaking up and he was able to sail an entire slab of ice, like a small island all the way to Greenland, where he was rescued by a support ship.

        There is far more affecting Arctic ice than what climate alarmists are conceding. It’s the outright lies about the Arctic that bothers me most.

        It’s far more likely that Arctic ice is being swept into the North Atlantic and melted by the Transpolar Drift than it is the lame theory that 0.04% of CO2 in the atmosphere is causing it to melt. I want to see a one to one correlation between anthropogenic CO2 and global warming. I am not holding my breath.

  7. Eric says:

    Thank You Dr. Spencer for the update.

  8. Tim Wells says:

    Been freezing across in the Uk, I see another 2010 coming.

    • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

      This year, the ONI was positive from March – July:
      +0.1
      +0.3
      +0.4
      +0.4
      +0.1

      The same five months also had a positive ONI in 1983:
      +1.5
      +1.3
      +1.1
      +0.7
      +0.3

      The lagged response in UAH TLT (September – November, 2017):
      +.54
      +.63
      +.36

      The lagged response in UAH TLT, (September – November, 1983):
      -0.01
      -0.10
      -0.08

      • Richard M says:

        1983 was well into the negative AMO and just starting the upswing into a positive PDO. It was also just after a major volcanic eruption (El Chichon in 1982). Did you expect those would have no effect?

        • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

          El Chichon, good catch! Then let’s go back a few years. ONI from March to July, 1980 (very similar to this year):
          +0.3
          +0.4
          +0.5
          +0.5
          +0.3

          UAH TLT (1980)
          September -0.01
          October. -0.16
          November. -0.14

    • Bindidon says:

      Been freezing across in the Uk…

      https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20171202&daytime=night&iid=UK

      And this shows night temperatures over UK…

      • Steve says:

        Tim Wells comment posted Friday afternoon was “BEEN freezing across in the UK”. This is totally correct. Frosts on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday night here in the South and colder in the Midlands and North. Tonight is slightly warmer due to some cloud cover.

        • Bindidon says:

          Oh my apologies to leave the millionth discussion where some people seem to confound climate and weather…

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          steve…”Tim Wells comment posted Friday afternoon was BEEN freezing across in the UK. This is totally correct”.

          Semantics. As you must know, living in the UK, the word freezing is used in different ways. It does not always mean sub-zero temps.

          • Steve says:

            Semantics, oh you mean facts.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Steve…”Semantics, oh you mean facts…”

            I am not doubting your facts, I am claiming that people using English use the term freezing in different ways. If I claim it is freezing out I don’t necessarily mean the temps are under 0C.

            The temps on the supplied graphic showed temps around 2C. That’s close enough to freezing for my likes. When I experience temps of 2C here in Vancouver, I have been known to declare, “It’s freezing!!”.

            That’s what I meant by semantics.

          • David Appell says:

            This is a science blog, not a semantics blog.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…”Been freezing across in the Uk”

        In English, we tend to claim it’s freezing when it’s uncomfortably cold. It could be 40F and we will claim it’s ‘freezing outside’ even though we are 8F above freezing.

        If the temps you show on your graph are in degrees C, I’d say the claim of it being freezing across the UK is correct, given our penchant in English for using colloquial expressions.

        • MikeR says:

          Wow 2 degrees C. If it was 2 degrees F I would be impressed. However as 3 C is the average minimum for the UK at this time of the year, it would be hard to characterise this as unusually freezing.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            mike r…”However as 3 C is the average minimum for the UK at this time of the year, it would be hard to characterise this as unusually freezing”.

            Since 0C is officially freezing, I am not quibbling for 2 C.

            And yes, 2 F is cold. It’s about -17 C.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      tim…”Been freezing across in the Uk, I see another 2010 coming”.

      Did you mean 2008? 2010 was a strong EN year, not that far behind 1998 and 2016. 2008 was the strongest La Nina year since 1995 at most.

      • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

        Gordon

        Tim is doing the same thing you do every winter……thinking if it’s cold locally it must be cold globally:

        “The winter of 2010-2011 was a weather event that brought heavy snowfalls, record low temperatures, travel chaos and school disruption to the islands of Britain and Ireland. It included the UK’a coldest December since Met Office records began in 1910……”

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          snape…”Tim is doing the same thing you do every winterthinking if its cold locally it must be cold globally:”

          I am well aware of globality versus locality. If you look at the UAH graph, 2010 was very warm, ranking about 3rd behind 1998 and 2016. It was an EN year and if there was record snowfall it was due to increased precipitation due to the EN.

          2008 on the graph is easily the coldest year on the UAH record from 1998 – present.

      • Des says:

        Gordon looks at the GLOBAL anomalies, sees they were high, and says “You guys in that tiny part of the world called England MUST have bee warm in 2010”.

        Great powers of inference there.

    • barry says:

      2010 was colder than 2008 in the UK.

      https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/had.cet/cetml1659on.dat *

      Nov 2008 was 2 C cooler than Nov 2010.

      It’s virtually certain that 2017 annual will be warmer than both those years.

      (Remove the dot between ‘had’ and ‘cet’ to make the link work)

      • barry says:

        Nov 2008 was 2 C cooler than Nov 2010

        Sorry, it’s the other way around.

        Point is Tim Wells was right and Gordon was wrong that 2010 was a cold year in the UK.

  9. barry says:

    The result for last month’s sweep is in – 0.36C.

    PhilJ 0.24
    gbakie 0.31
    MikeR 0.39
    barry 0.41
    Svante 0.41

    MikeR gets the car again. But he helped himself by waiting til the end of the month and looking at data.

    We guessers get a goat apiece.

    • PhilJ says:

      Rats.. Ive got no room for a goat…

      But ill try again 0.19 for Dec..

      With solar min continuing i expect the anomoly to continueto fall throughout the winter and ifsolar activity doesnot pick up we will be back to zero or neg values by spring …

    • Svante says:

      I shall prepare two guesses and put one forward. When MikeR reveals his answer I will swap my guesses. That will double the size of my goat.

    • barry says:

      Pretty sure there will be another drop. I’ll go with 0.21.

      For no other reason than for fun.

    • mikeR says:

      I am just doing a Ren and letting you everyone that there still no sign of La Nina in the aqua satellite data. It is currently running at about 0.43C based on the first 11 days of data.

      As I have an unfair advantage I will not formally participate in the betting and handing back my trophies from the past two months.

      It is a pity that as, a fellow antipodean, I would not have needed to travel far to join Barry for a drop of his Grange.

      • Svante says:

        Too bad MikeR, I shall copy Salvatore instead, and add a bit from what you just said: 0.34.

        • MikeR says:

          Svante,

          You may need to add a lot more. Based on fhe first 20 days of this month, the current data for the aqua satellite corresponds to 0.5 C for UAH v6.

          A figure above 0.46 C would make it the warmest December on record, breaking the record for December 2015 (which was set during the run up to the 2016 El Nino).

          This is particularly disconcerting as we have had La Nina or near La Nina conditions for several months now.

  10. barry says:

    BoM ENSO watch has upgraded the chance of full la Nina in the months ahead to 70%.

    The tropical Pacific is approaching La Nia thresholds. If the current progression continues, and thresholds are exceeded for a sustained period, 201718 will be considered a La Nia event. As a result, the Bureaus ENSO Outlook has been raised to La Nia ALERT meaning there is approximately a 70% chanceor triple the normal likelihoodof La Nia occurring. Climate models suggest that any event is likely to be weak and short-lived.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=Overview

    (NB: This is weather watching rather than a climate analysis)

  11. Greven says:

    It’s been unseasonably warm in Oklahoma, that’s for certain.

    Plants that shouldn’t be blooming this time of year are doing so.

    • Greven says:

      Incidentally, there are some discrepancies with the data above with… um… itself?
      2017 1 0.33 (says 0.32 up there)
      2017 2 0.38
      2017 3 0.23 (says 0.22 up there)

      • Bindidon says:

        Greven, this is correct.

        1. When you include new data e.g. due to readings originating from additional instruments, your absolute data resulting from the averaging over all instruments may vary and so the anomalies.

        2. If by the way you happened to modify absolute data within your climatology (i.e. the period used as a baseline) the entire anomaly sequence has of course to be recomputed.

  12. Gordon Robertson says:

    The question that should be asked is what is really going on. These wild swings in temps over the short range have nothing whatsoever to do with anthropogenic warming or climate change.

    Last December in Vancouver, Canada set records for cold and this December is back to normal, with temps between 5C and 10C during the day. We are prone here to freezing Arctic air descending on us but that is due to weather conditions in the Pacific creating conditions for the Arctic air to reach us.

    It happens several times per winter, but generally, we are the banana belt of Canada, with mild temps while the rest of Canada goes through freezing weather and blizzards. Atlantic Canada is milder, I understand, but they get their share of blizzards and storms which we manage to evade for the most part.

    The swings in weather the world has been experiencing as of late could not possibly be related to CO2 in the atmosphere at 0.04%. That concentrations has been with us for centuries and ACO2 has added a tiny percentage to the value.

    The IPCC confirmed that ACO2 is a small percentage of the 0.04%, which is 96% from natural sources.

    • Nate says:

      Uh no. The natural fraction, 270/400 is 67%, last I checked.

      Your .04% is to small to matter meme has been debunked at least 100 times.

      • Svante says:

        The natural cycle has a large turnover, but it was in balance.
        We add a small part of the turnover, but all of the increase.

        • Bindidon says:

          Exactement / exactly…

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Nate, Svante, and Bin–sorry gents. You keep believing, but CO2 does not heat the planet.

            You’ve got a much better chance believing that Santa is real.

          • Nate says:

            “CO2 does not heat the planet”. And G* your proof for this is what???

            Oh yeah, made-up physics.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Nate, my poor desperate little buddy, it is not I that must “prove” anything. Do you not understand “null hypothesis”? It is YOU that has the burden of proof.

            Have fun.

          • Svante says:

            g*e*r*a*n proved it here:
            https://s20.postimg.org/av6u36vbh/I_m_with_stupid.jpg

            Identical plates, identical temperature, asymmetric radiation.

            Shaded objects in space stay warm thanks to doubled back radiation in reverse.

            Hilarious.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Well, not exactly. The green plate acquires the same temperature due to physics.

            But, at least you and miker got the graphic right this time.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            Do an experiment to prove your statement correct or Shut Up already with your stupid make believe physics. People are really getting tired of you making up crap and trying to sell it as reality.

            PROVE YOUR NONSENSE: “Well, not exactly. The green plate acquires the same temperature due to physics.”

            This goes against established physics, relies on complete ludicrous ideas that blue plate at same temperature than the green plate will not absorb any backradiation from the green plate.

            Really stupid physics that if you have the need to continue to post then prove with a valid experiment. Ball4 has already done your apple experiment proving you are an idiot.

            Prove your crap or quick your yapping, your bark is more a yap and getting very redundant.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Someone took the muzzle off the toothless, emasculated chihuahua.

            Hilarious.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”This goes against established physics…”

            It goes against YOUR version of established physics.

            Svante posted a link in which it is explained that electrons are responsible for all EM absorp-tion and emission yet you still continue to argue that electrons are not involved. When I ask you what else could be involved, since the only charge carriers in an atom are the proton and electron, you have no answers.

            You don’t get it that atoms are protons and electrons, that atoms are held together by electrons, and that molecules are simply collections of electrons and protons. Even the legend in his own mind, Appell, who boasts a degree in physics, cannot begin to comprehend that actuality.

            I have laid out a scientific argument as to why radiation from a cooler body cannot affect the temperature of a warmer body and you have no comeback. Even Appell doesn’t get it, resorting to mumblings about quantum mysteries.

            If the science of electronics depended on the likes of you and Appell, it would have to be disbanded forthwith. Sorry, folks, move along, there are no electrons, so electronics is being disbanded.

            Get real, the 2nd law states that heat cannot be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body. The means of heat transfer in radiation is radiation. How can radiation from a cooler body be absorbed by a warmer body and still satisfy the 2nd law?

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson wrote:
            “Get real, the 2nd law states that heat cannot be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body.”

            Liar.

            I think that’s now Gordon’s 945th lie. Soon he’ll be at a thousand.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson wrote:
            “If the science of electronics depended on the likes of you and Appell, it would have to be disbanded forthwith.”

            Gordon, undergraduate physics majors spend about 3 weeks on circuit theory, and then move on to much more interesting stuff.

            By not it’s a gazillion years old. Sure, modern electrical engineering is an interesting and important field, but you’re just connecting wires. You are (or were) just a technician.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            Sadly it is true. David Appell calls you a liar and so it seems you are.

            Here you falsely make this claim (which you know is not at all true!): “Svante posted a link in which it is explained that electrons are responsible for all EM absorp-tion and emission yet you still continue to argue that electrons are not involved. When I ask you what else could be involved, since the only charge carriers in an atom are the proton and electron, you have no answers.”

            How dishonest do you have to be to peddle your make believe physics.
            As a master of the art of deception it is strange you are accusing NOAA of deception when you show great dishonesty. I thought g*e*r*a*n was the only intentional liar on this blog. Please don’t sink to that low level. You are a better person than that!

            I have stated many times that electrons do not transition in the generation of Mid-IR!! I did not say electrons were not involved in the generation!!! They create the dipoles (along with the positive nucleus) that generate the Mid-IR. The atoms, with slight charge difference, in a molecule vibrating in different modes (that are clearly shown in Svante’s link to you that you seem to totally ignore) are what are generating the Mid-IR.

            Here is a second lie from you (quit lying, it is below your character!). YOU: “I have laid out a scientific argument as to why radiation from a cooler body cannot affect the temperature of a warmer body and you have no comeback. Even Appell doesnt get it, resorting to mumblings about quantum mysteries.”

            I have given you several comebacks on multiple threads. Maybe you have advanced dementia and forget all that has been written to you. Maybe you only retain information for a short time and have no long term memory. This could be the case, then any point I make with you is wasted effort.

            Since you have poor memory, I have given you Kirchhoff’s law. I have posted quotes clearly stating that objects at room temperature have a majority of their molecules at ground state and can easily absorb all the energy they are able to absorb. Room temperature is not enough to effect emissivity/abosrbitivity to any significant degree. You need much hotter temperatures to start effecting them.

            Since you may have dementia, you may read this, and a minute later forget you read it and then claim I never gave you a valid comeback.

          • MikeR says:

            g*e*r*a*n – But, at least you and miker got the graphic right this time.

            Yes I am glad my latest portrayal of g*e*r*a*ns blue/green plate concept ( https://s20.postimg.org/av6u36vbh/I_m_with_stupid.jpg ) meets his approval. I think this stupidity could be an accurate representation of his state of mind. I did suggest previously that Jackson Pollocks drip paintings was a good representation of his thought disordered mental state (especially his work titled blue/green poles). However a Reinhardt black on black or just simply a blank canvas could be also used to represent his intellect.

            But returning to g*e*r*a*ns interpretation of the plates, he appears to

            1. persist in his belief that simply changing the colour of an arrow changes the energy accounting ,

            2. that an arrow pointing in towards a plate is a valid way of representing radiation leaving the same plate and

            3. not understand that according to he diagram above, the net radiation for the green arrows entering and leaving the green plate from the left is zero, leaving 200 W (blue) arriving at the green plate and all 200 W leaving the green plate on the other side. It kind of makes sense to g*e*r*a*n but Stefan and/or Boltzmann would have a very different opinion on the matter.

            G*e*r*a*n * thinks this all hilarious and I have to agree but I would be very interested in his detailed response to these three points.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            miker, your items 2 & 3 seem very confused.

            But, at least you finally got the graphic correct.

          • Tony says:

            3. not understand that according to he diagram above, the net radiation for the green arrows entering and leaving the green plate from the left is zero, leaving 200 W (blue) arriving at the green plate and all 200 W leaving the green plate on the other side.

            Yes, its called heat flow. The heat can only be lost on the right side of the green plate. Energy can flow from the left of the green plate, but not heat.

            Heat CAN be lost to the left side of the BLUE plate because the sun is as a point source to the blue plate, so heat can be lost in the hemisphere of possible directions other than perpendicular to the blue plate.

            So, overall, you have 400 W coming in, and 400 W going out. Same as with Elis solution. The only difference is that the correct solution (G*e*r*a*ns) takes account of all the laws of thermodynamics.

          • Tony says:

            Another way you could show the exact same thing is to remove both green arrows that are to the left of the green plate (so there is only one blue arrow pointing to the right, coming from the blue plate) and provide a legend that makes clear all arrows are showing directionality of HEAT flow.

          • Tony says:

            But I would recommend (for clarity) a diagram with g*e*r*a*ns to start with (to show directionality of energy flows) and then the one I just explained below it (to show directionality of heat flows). If g*e*r*a*n agrees.

          • Svante says:

            Tony,
            g*e*r*a*n*s plot violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

            There is a net energy flow between the plates, but their temperature is the same.

          • Tony says:

            You guys are welcome to have another 1,000+ comment discussion about it, where the exact same things are said by each side over and over again. Other than seeing the visualisations, I have no interest in that. Id quite like to see Elis solution as well (you can see diagrams of it developing, but the diagram with the final numbers – at equilibrium). Put all the different solutions side by side, Id be grateful, absolutely. But, other than that, no interest.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Svante muffs it again!

            Svante, you are confused. You believe that energy cannot flow between the two plates because they are essentially at the same temperature. There are at least two ways to understand it.

            1) Think of the green plate as always at a slightly lower temperature, maybe one tenth of a degree, or

            2) Realize that the energy flow is due to the “forcing” from the source. Energy out must equal energy in.

            Your lack of experience in real-world thermodynamic systems is showing.

          • MikeR says:

            Excellent idea Tony as you stated here –
            You guys are welcome to have another 1,000+ comment discussion about it, where the exact same things are said by each side over and over again. Other than seeing the visualisations, I have no interest in that. Id quite like to see Elis solution as well (you can see diagrams of it developing, but the diagram with the final numbers at equilibrium .

            Here is the calculation of the steady state solution –

            https://s20.postimg.org/fxekakdnh/Rabbet_Excel2.jpg .

            I would love to see g*e*r*a*n’s solution.

            Over to him and he can obtain assistance from the rest of the brains trust (i.e Gordon, Skeptic etc.). He may need to explain the necessity to either forgo the conservation of energy or the Stefan Boltzmann Law or both.I guess he could also add some more arrows of various colours. Anything is possible.

          • MikeR says:

            G*e*r*a*n,

            With regards your statement – miker, your items 2 & 3 seem very confused.

            Could you please elaborate further. I think I would, along with many others, be fascinated by a more detailed response.

            However, it is good sign of progress that we have sorted out item 1 regarding you confusion about the significance (or non-significance) of the colours of the arrows.

            I await your answer (and the calculations referred to immediately above).

          • Tony says:

            Thanks MikeR. Yes, that makes the problem with Elis fairly clear. It would be even clearer with g*e*r*a*ns and Elis on the same image. The blue plate received 400 W from the sun (the only possible energy source) but emitted 534 W!? More power out than in!?

            Well, Ill let you guys duke it out.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            miker, firstly item 2 is poorly worded. Here’s the exact quote:

            “2. that an arrow pointing in towards a plate is a valid way of representing radiation leaving the same plate and”

            I think you are trying to imply that I somehow agree with that. You have done this before. You have tried to falsely represent the facts. That just means you are desperate, and cannot face the truth.

            You try the same tactic, again:

            “3. not understand that according to he [sic] diagram above, the net radiation for the green arrows entering and leaving the green plate from the left is zero, leaving 200 W (blue) arriving at the green plate and all 200 W leaving the green plate on the other side. It kind of makes sense to g*e*r*a*n but Stefan and/or Boltzmann would have a very different opinion on the matter.”

            I understand perfectly. In fact, it was I that calculated the flux values and provided them to you. You are falsely representing the facts, due to your pathetic knowledge of physics.

            But, you have other climate clowns to support you, so you will continue with your illiterate and dishonest methods.

            Proceed.

          • Norman says:

            I am certain Eli is correct with his math and g*e*r*a*n is wrong.

            The only thing that will be accepted is a valid test in a vacuum chamber surrounded by chilled walls. Have an Eli arrangement of plates (fairly large in size and very close to each other so the view factor gets as close to one as possible)

            Tony misses the big picture with his little picture view.

            He sees the blue plate emitting what he thinks is more energy than is received. It is not at all doing this. The system is receiving 400 watts and losing 400 watts. The EM the blue plate emits has a portion returning from the green plate and that is why its temperature rises so the whole system can emit 400 watts.

            If I owned a vacuum chamber I would end the nonsense and do the tests. I have looked for valid tests of this setup on the Web but so far have not found any. Not a hard or expensive test to perform.

            Wonder why some blog group has not done it yet. Maybe Myth Busters should set it up. They seem to have funding for this type of experiment.

            The debate has gone on years with the same point counter point..

            Established science clearly favors Eli. Pseudo made up science of Joe Postma is wrong but has a very strong influence on many.

            A good valid test will end this debate but good. If it comes up a link to YouTube will shut it down. With good testing the results will be fairly close to Eli calculations.

            Anyone with access to a vacuum chamber that can set up an experiment to demonstrate that a heated plate will get warmer if surrounded by a nonheated object? Provided the surroundings are much colder (walls of the chamber) than the heated object or the nonheated object.

          • MikeR says:

            Tony, I can see where you are coming from.

            Yes the blue plate, because it is at a higher temperature than 242 K (this is the figure if the green plate was not present) and will naturally radiate the extra radiation. G*e*r*a*ns model has both plates at 242 K.

            The correct model has the blue plate at higher temperature at 262 K radiating (more than it would at 242 K ) at 533 W.
            As you correctly point out this is 133 W more than the 400 W coming in, just from the input from the sun. The additional amount (133 W) is absorbed from back reflection from the green plate.

            The green plate is at a lower temperature of 222 K and therefore radiating 267 W ( 133 W less than the amount it would be radiating at 242 K). It all balances out neatly.

            With regard to doing the exact same calculation for G*e*r*a*ns model, I am letting him and/or his colleagues attempt it. I want to see the fun.

          • Tony says:

            If it helps, the first paragraph of my comment at December 3rd, 8:34, is a quote from MikeRs comment, and despite my response beginning Yes, Im not actually in agreement…

          • MikeR says:

            G*e*r*a*n above states above the following –

            2. that an arrow pointing in towards a plate is a valid way of representing radiation leaving the same plate and
            I think you are trying to imply that I somehow agree with that. You have done this before. You have tried to falsely represent the facts. That just means you are desperate, and cannot face the truth.

            So g*e*r*a*n what was http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-273999 all about? In which you comment-

            g* responds: It doesnt matter which of the two right-going arrows you change. No, it does not mean that. It means that the IR was emitted by the green plate, instead of the blue plate.

            So you referred to the incoming (to the green plate) arrow as meaning emitted (in your words) by the green plate. Do you want to trip now change the direction of this arrow or its colour again?

            As g*e*r*a*n is so slippery, he can easily slip and be caught out, but g*e*r*a*n will of course soldier on. It is eerily reminiscent of another who chooses to ignore facts. G* do you happen to write Donald Trumps tweets by any chance?

            With respect to point 3. You state that
            I understand perfectly. In fact, it was I that calculated the flux values and provided them to you.

            Good g*e*r*a*n , then show how these figures can be reconciled with energy balance equations for the blue, green plate and the system and simultaneously satisfy the Stefan -Boltzmann Law for each surface. This is the basis of my request for you to perform a similar set of calculations to those that I have presented.

            To assist you I need to point out that you have balanced the blue plate perfectly ( 600 W in and 600 W out) which is excellent news. The bad news is that with 600 W being emitted by the blue plate (ie. 300 W on each side) , this corresponds to a temperature T1 of the blue plate of 269.7 K! This is different to your calculated (?) value of 244 K. So your calculation gives a higher temperature for the blue plate than does Eli’s. G*e*r*a*n must be a closet alarmist.

            The even more disastrous mistake was pointed out by Svante. As T1 and T2 are supposed to have identical temperatures and are in equilibrium there cannot be net radiation between the plates must be zero .

            The following maybe superfluous and is total overkill, but in the case of g*e*r*a*n, it may be necessary. The Stefan- Boltzmann equation for the net exchange of radiation ( E ) between two bodies at temperatures T1 and T2 is given by E = sigma x (T1^4-T2^4) where sigma is the Stefan Boltzmann constant.

            I will pose this question to g*e*r*a*n, what happens when T1 and T2 are identical?

            If you do manage to work this out then you have a major problem as you have 3 discrete arrows representing the radiation (all 200 W) . I have to point out that it is extremely difficult to add an odd number of identical arrows (even if you can flip their directions at will) and still add up to zero. If however you can do this then I suggest you can try your hand at squaring the circle, and once you have done that, move onto solving Fermats last theorem.

            Apologies for the total overkill but nothing exceeds like excess, especially when dealing with slippery crackpots.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            The con-man states: “Established science clearly favors Eli.”

            No Con-man. If you understood thermodynamics you would know that the “Eli” solution is bogus. You can NOT raise the temperature of the blue plate from flux from a colder plate. You just don’t have the background and experience to understand. All you have are your childish insults that make you appear as a yelping chihuahua.

            More please.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            miker, your comment at 3:49pm (above) was nearly incomprehensible. I don’t have the time or interest to try to figure out what you believe you are trying to state.

            But, I was able to translate enough of your rambling tirade to know that you are confused about the calculations.

            1) You keep claiming (FALSELY) that I cannot produce the flux calculations. I did this several times, and even included the values in a reply to you, last topic post.

            2) You are very confused as to how to calculate the values. You claim the blue plate is emitting 300 W/m^2. WRONG! The blue plate is emitting 200 W/m^2.

          • MikeR says:

            Minor correction to my comment to Tony at 10.08 pm on December 3. The temperature of the blue plate without the green plate present should be 244 K (as in my diagram) not 242 K.

            Still waiting for a set of calculations from the g*. In the meantime maybe Tony could have a go if he has Excel handy.

          • MikeR says:

            G*, as anyone that has ever been involved with STEM education can attest, a student that provides an answer without providing the calculations normally gets a fail, particularly if their answer is wrong.

            Traceability of calculations is also normally a requirement in all scientific and engineering fields.

            G*, your unwillingness to provide any calculation of how you derived the answers for both plates means either 1. you are incapable of doing the calculations (please prove me wrong) or 2. you may realise that you are wrong.

            G*, admitting you are wrong is not a sin. I have been wrong on many occasions in the past (see above) and I am sure I will be in the future. Admitting to your mistakes is a sign of maturity. Hopefully you will get there one day.

            So ends today’s homily.

            p. s. On the topics of mistakes, your reference to 300 W is particularly puzzling Surely you would have counted the total number of arrows both entering and leaving the blue plate.

            They total 600 W entering (red arrow from the sun at left – 400 W plus 200 W from the green arrow entering from the right) and leaving (200 W from blue arrow leaving to the left plus 200 W each from the green and blue arrows leaving to the right).

            I am referencing the diagram that met your approval see https://s20.postimg.org/av6u36vbh/I_m_with_stupid.jpg .

            To further clarify the 300W is the radiation leaving each face (total 600 W).

            G” If you believe my accounting is incorrect then please show us your version. In other words, to put it bluntly, put up or shut up.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            miker, you’re still not getting it.

            I’m not going to wade through your mindless, rambling tirade trying to find substance. Here are the rules, if you wish to communicate with me:

            1) Omit all personal attacks, including your assumptions of what you believe are my thoughts. You have little knowledge of the science here, so you need to learn, not preach.

            2) Limit your comment to 10 lines MAX.

            3) Only consider ONE topic or question per comment.

            Now, try again.

          • Nate says:

            G*,

            “Well, not exactly. The green plate acquires the same temperature due to physics.”

            And yet violates 0th and 1st laws of thermodynamics.

            Amusing.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Nate believes: “And yet violates 0th and 1st laws of thermodynamics.”

            Nate, likely you would like to share your knowledge of those “violations”.

          • MikeR says:

            G* your last reply indicates that your willing to try anything to avoid providing any details of your calculations.

            On this basis and to avoid any further offence to g*e*”r*a*n, I will hold my tongue and leave it to others to arrive at their own conclusions regarding g*.

            However if g* ever reconsiders his position then I would be happy to discuss his calculations. I also promise not to be nasty and will not repetitively use the word hilarious to mock you.

          • MikeR says:

            Before I sign off for today I must say to g* that I apologise if I have hurt his feelings.

            I am sure if I again read the 700 or so comments that g* has generated for the past 3 months, I can learn to treat g* with same dignity and respect that he affords to others.

            For example g*e*r*a*n’s comment above on December 2, to quote –

            Someone took the muzzle off the toothless, emasculated chihuahua.
            Hilarious.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Forced to behave like an adult, miker flees the scene.

            Kids, these days. ..

          • Tony says:

            Well, as MikeRs leaving, guess we wont get to see the image with both g*e*r*a*ns and Elis solution on it. Thats a shame. But, its still immediately obvious that in Elis solution, the blue plate receives 400 W from the sun (red arrow) yet somehow emits 534 W (blue arrows). In g*e*r*a*n*s, the blue plate receives 400 W from the sun (red arrow) and emits 400 W (blue arrows – the green arrows to the left of the green plate just cancel each other out). So, thats settled that, in g*e*r*a*ns favour. Looks like Elis pre-kindergarten-boy error was to treat the backradiation from the green plate as though it were an additional energy source.

            Well, with all that absolutely, finally, settled, I guess I could check up occasionally to see if that final image appears. Otherwise, thats that.

          • Nate says:

            “And yet violates 0th and 1st laws of thermodynamics.”

            You want plates to come to the same temp and yet considerable heat is transferred between them. (0LOT violation).

            I thought you were the thermodynamics expert, and all the rest of us are posers?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Nate, I don’t think I’ve ever called you a “poser”. I have noticed that you are confused about thermodynamics. A lot of people are.

            See if this helps:

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-274636

          • Nate says:

            “1) Think of the green plate as always at a slightly lower temperature, maybe one tenth of a degree, or

            2) Realize that the energy flow is due to the forcing from the source. Energy out must equal energy in.

            Your lack of experience in real-world thermodynamic systems is showing.”

            Both of these are complete nonsense.

            1. “one tenth of a degree” . If you can’t actually commit to a temperature, than you have no solution.

            2. Meaningless gibberish unrelated to real-world thermodynamics.

            In real thermo of this setup, a temp difference IS the forcing.

          • Nate says:

            “Think of the green plate as always at a slightly lower temperature, maybe one tenth of a degree”

            This is nonsense for another reason.

            You seem to acknowledge that plates are at same temp, then no heat transfer, 0. Now with 0.1 degree difference the heat flow jumps to 200 W.

            No real-world objects behave in this highly discontinuous way.

            If they did, you would find all sorts of absurdities, like a cup of coffee cooling super-rapidly to ambient temp, then abruptly stopping!

            Heat flow always increases continuously with temp difference.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Here lies the problem, Nate. You do not understand thermodynamics. When I try to make some type of analogy to help you understand, you pick it apart. You don’t want to understand. You just want to try to discredit the correct solution.

            But, I have to make the attempt to respond, until I clearly discern your motive.

            Enjoy your career in climate comedy. You have a lot of competition.

          • Nate says:

            G*,

            So you admit you have no good answers.

            The STOP telling everyone how little they understand thermo!

          • Nate says:

            G*,

            “When I try to make some type of analogy to help you understand, you pick it apart. ”

            Real problems are not solved by analogy or guessing within a tenth of a degree as you are doing.

            Real problems like this one are solving by writing down equations and solving them (as has been shown to you).

            You have yet to write down equations that are solved to find your ‘solution’. Why, because it cant be done with fake physics.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Nate explodes in an ecstasy of pseudoscience pyrotechnics.

            Fun to watch.

          • Nate says:

            G* thinks saying the magic words:

            Pseudoscience, hillarious, climate comedy, etc

            gets him out of addressing the real problems with his fake science.

          • Nate says:

            “plates are at same temp, then no heat transfer, 0. Now with 0.1 degree difference the heat flow jumps to 200 W.

            No real-world objects behave in this highly discontinuous way.If they did, you would find all sorts of absurdities”

            I await your response…

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Nate, are you saying you are sober enough that you can obey the rules?

            1) Omit all personal attacks, including your assumptions of what you believe are my thoughts. You have little knowledge of the science here, so you need to learn, not preach.

            2) Limit your comment to 10 lines MAX.

            3) Only consider ONE topic or question per comment.

            If so, continue.

          • Nate says:

            G* makes ‘rules’

            ‘Omit all personal attacks, including your assumptions of what you believe are my thoughts.”

            Then immediately violates his own rules:

            “You have little knowledge of the science here, so you need to learn, not preach.”

            And makes ‘assumptions’ about what I know and need to learn!

            Actually pretty funny.

            Just get on with what you want to say! Then let me respond.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Nate, it appears you did not pass the sobriety test.

            Please don’t attempt to drive home tonight.

          • Nate says:

            How bout this: if you can refrain from making personal attacks and assumptions about what i know and dont know., then i will reciprocate. If you can be brief, then i will reciprocate. If i dsagree i will tell you so, and expect same from you.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Nate, when you sober up, notice that you changed to lower case “i”, instead of “I”. Also, you lost all apostrophes. And, even though you appear to be asking a question, there is no question mark.

            All signs of extreme inebriation.

            Enjoy stumbling home tonight.

            Hilarious.

          • Nate says:

            More games.

            Look, I tried to play fair.

            Why not just admit that you have no good answers.

            Which is fine because the science is what it is.

          • mikeR says:

            Tony, I thought you may have had a genuine interest in trying to understand the two plates system. It seems I may have been mistaken.
            I have tried my best to indulge you and g*e*r*a*n with tailored diagrams and spreadsheet calculations but to no avail.

            Despite this I will try and proceed further to attempt to clarify your confusion. However because of the inconsistencies of the g* model make it difficult for the equations to make sense I have abandoned my futile attempt to analyse it a top down fashion as I did with Elis calculations.

            But I have an open invitation for g* and the rest of the gang to help me out. I may be waiting for a long time.

            Consequently I have decided to listen to Tony and produce a comparison with the two diagrams and the relevant calculations. I will just use the answers supplied by g* (and the g* approved diagram) to look at it from the other end.

            A very common and standard procedure in all fields of science is to see whether the calculations performed are internally consistent. If they are not, it indicates a problem with the model and/or calculations.

            I just applied the tests for inconsistencies here for both models. My tests were of course energy balance for the system as a whole, energy balance for both plates, whether the temperatures calculated by Stefan- Boltzmann equation were consistent and finally whether the results violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. For the results see

            https://s20.postimg.org/in6frkozh/Consistency_Tests.jpg .

            Elis calculations are internally consistent for all of these tests.

            Unfortunately in contrast , g*s version fails two of the tests (see the red ink in the attached image of the spreadsheet) despite it passing on the majority of the tests. Firstly it produces a temperature for the blue plate of about 270 K which contradicts g*s asserted temperature for this plate of 242 K. Secondly neither value of 270 K or 242 K for the blue plate gives a value consistent with his diagram for the net radiation between the plates.

            Tony, I am not sure what you will make of this but try and understand this material. I am sure you can do it. I suggest you, or any else who is interested, download it and print it out so you can peruse it at your leisure.

            By the way your objection with regard to the increased temperature and energy radiated by the blue plate could be readily understood if you have experienced either of the following.

            1. A mirror reflecting the suns radiation onto an area already illuminated by the sun or
            2. a related phenomenon of feeling an increase in temperature while standing next to a brick wall (that has been in the sun) on a sunny day.

            In both cases the mirror and brick wall have indirectly caused an increase in temperature and internal energy without violating any laws of thermodynamics. However if you are of a contrary opinion then I suggest you take your objections up with mirror or argue with the brick wall.

          • mikeR says:

            A public link to the Excel file containing the calculations of Eli’s and g*’s versions is on my Google drive at https://drive.google.com/file/d/11JnLJn1Mgh-eBteiGNPT__q7dVeTaidm/view?usp=sharing .

            Tony or anyone else, please feel free to download,peruse and modify if you are so inclined.

          • Tony says:

            Thanks for putting the visualisations together. I think that settles it, in g*e*r*a*ns favour.

            By the way, youve made a mistake in your comparisons. In g*e*r*a*ns case you have written that the blue plate emits and absorbs 600 W. As explained earlier, it is shown as emitting 400 W (blue arrows) and absorbing 400 W (red arrow).

            Please do carry on arguing against yourselves for another 1000+ comments, but the visualisation was all I was interested in. Thanks again.

          • MikeR says:

            Tony, did you actually look at the graphics? Did you understand the calculations? Can you download the spreadsheet? Can you open it?

            Do you have a calculator handy? Does 400+200=600?

            So many questions.

          • MikeR says:

            Tony (and g*).

            As I have to repeat yet again for those who are intellectually challenged, the results of using Eli’s calculations should not be surprising. We have an asymmetrical situation with the sun incident on the blue plate only, with the green plate in the shadow of the blue plate (the view factors which would be close to 1 if the ratio of the separation to plate dimensions was small enough) .

            How the hell would anyone with any discernible brain activity expect that the steady state solution would have the blue and green plate at the same temperature?

            Maybe you could answer that and explain why you appear to be also content that the results of g*s equations are not internally consistent ie. they contradict each other.

          • MikeR says:

            As I am about to retire for the night, I think I will just clarify one other thing with regards to Tony’s interpretation of g*’s concept.

            Tony somehow believes that, according to the arrows that represent the radiation in the appropriate diagram (the one that met g*’s approval), the only radiation the blue plate absorbs is from the sun.

            If this is the case, where does the 200 W from the green plate go that is emitted in the direction of the blue plate? Does it self destruct? Does it try and go around the blue plate or does it just go straight through it? Is green radiation rejected by the blue plate based on colour? Is this just racist behaviour by the blue plate?

            There is however a more sane and well known alternative. It is simply absorbed by the blue plate.

            So we have 400 W absorbed from the sun plus 200 W of back radiation from the green plate. I will let Tony, if he has found his calculator, to work out the sum.

            I am sorry to sound so dismissive of Tony, but he gives me little choice in the matter.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Yes Tony, you are correct. The blue plate is emitting 200 W/m^2, not 600, as miker claims. He just doesn’t understand radiative heat transfer. I had to help him get the color-coding correct, on his graphic, and he still doesn’t understand!

            Nate and miker don’t want to understand, they just want to run from the truth. That’s why I require they conform to the rules before I will address their nonsense.

            The invalid solution fails because it has the cooler green plate warming the blue plate. That’s impossible. The only incoming energy is 400 W/m^2. So the MAXIMUM temperature the blue plate can ever achieve is the S/B temperature of 244K. To achieve a higher temperature, there would have to be ADDITIONAL energy from the outside source. Reflected energy from the green plate is not NEW energy to the system, and can not cause any increase in temperature.

            The climate clowns do not want to learn. All we can do is enjoy their humor, while it lasts.

          • Nate says:

            “Nate and miker dont want to understand, they just want to run from the truth.”

            No, we simply dont agree with your beliefs. We dont think they make sense. Nor do ordinary physics textbooks. Nor do the teachers who’ve taught me this material. Nor do known experts, Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Dyson, etc. Nor do rocket scientists.

            It is unlikely that all of us do not understand thermodynamics, as G* weirdly insists.

            Given plenty of opportunities to explain to us how your beliefs agree with known science, you have not succeeded. That should concern you.

          • Nate says:

            Tony,

            In G* version the BLUE plate emits 200 W/m2. But at the same time it perfectly reflects 200 W/m^2 like a mirror.

            He would have you believe that the blue plate is a perfect emitter while also being a perfect reflector. You ok with that?

            There are no such magical plates in the real world. A plate is either a good reflector (like silver) or a good absorber and emitter (like charcoal).

            He will undoubtedly say that when the BLUE plate’s temp slightly exceeds that of the GREEN, it reflects radiation from GREEN.

            It swtiches from being charcoal into silver with that slight temperature difference!

            Again this is magical behavior not found in the real world. Not even close!

            You ok with this?

          • Nate says:

            “The invalid solution fails because it has the cooler green plate warming the blue plate. Thats impossible.”

            Here is your key confusion.

            The cooler GREEN is not warming the warmer BLUE. The sun is! So it is not impossible.

            You are over thinking 2LOT. 2LOT says heat flows from hot to cold. It does here. It flows from BLUE to GREEN, requiring BLUE to be warmer. It is! No 2LOT violations!

          • Nate says:

            “To achieve a higher temperature, there would have to be ADDITIONAL energy from the outside source. Reflected energy from the green plate is not NEW energy to the system, and can not cause any increase in temperature.”

            Nonsense! You are denying what insulation clearly can do to make a heated system (eg my house) warmer with the same heat input.

          • MikeR says:

            I know it is a truism but g*’s latest comment emphasises that it would be more productive to argue with a brick wall, (which was one of my suggestions to Tony) than with g*. It definitely would elicit a more sensible response.

            As Scotty wisely said . You canna argue with laws of physics (and mathematics ). If you try you will definitely come off the worse for wear.

            I suggest that G* either just clicks on the link or download the spreadsheet (if he has the capability, he could use the free Google Sheets if he doesn’t have Excel) that I provided upstream for Tony, and then comment.

            Otherwise it’s just regurgitation of g* evidence free assertions which appears to be his specialty. Actually it is not that special, as he has many colleagues who are quite willing to also unashamedly display this behaviour. The world is a strange place.

            I know I may be labouring the point but It is abundantly clear that G* appears either, not able to understand, or alternatively unwilling to deal with material that might challenge his assumptions.

            Rather than being hilarious, it is starting to get sad and pathetic.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            It’s going to take all of my self-discipline to comment here without mentioning things like “Dumb and Dumber”, “pseudoscience”, “climate comedy”, and such.

            Instead, I going to restrict myself to only facts and logic.

            miker states that the correct solution fails for two reasons. He mistakenly calculates the blue plate emitting 300 Watts/m^2. I have told him that is wrong. Tony has told him that is wrong. miker’s own graphic clearly shows only the two blue arrows, 200 Watts/m^2 each. Yet, miker continues to somehow miss the fact that the two green arrows, to and from the blue plate, cancel. His inability to comprehend is just amazing.

            So, he erroneously uses the 300 Watt/m^2 to calculate the 270 K. Since he used the wrong flux, he got a wrong temperature. But, that doesn’t stop him.

            He now claims that the correct solution fails for “two” reasons. But, both “reasons” involve his incorrect 270 K temperature. He makes a gross mistake, uses it twice, trying to, in his mind, invalidate the correct solution.

            Sorry, but that’s just hilarious.

            Next up is Nate. Nate wisely avoids any math. He attempts to discredit the correct solution by claiming it is not “real world”. What he fails to mention is the problem is a “thought experiment”. It is NOT real world. So, he is trying to discredit the correct solution by discrediting the original problem, which was presented by Warmists!

            Sorry again, but that’s just hilarious.

            Maybe Dumb and Dumber will try some new pseudoscience, in their next climate comedy routine. (Darn, I didn’t make it all the way without mentioning those things.)

          • Nate says:

            ‘Next up is Nate. Nate wisely avoids any math. He attempts to discredit the correct solution by claiming it is not real world. What he fails to mention is the problem is a thought experiment. It is NOT real world. So, he is trying to discredit the correct solution by discrediting the original problem, which was presented by Warmists!’

            Miker is very likely right about the brick wall.

            Generalized insults and hand-waving is all G* can muster, since you have no actual arguments to refute my quite specific problems with his ‘solution’.

            If you are serious about defending your beliefs then just address one of these problems with without using the words pseudoscience, etc

            ” A plate is either a good reflector (like silver) or a good absorber and emitter (like charcoal).

            He will undoubtedly say that when the BLUE plates temp slightly exceeds that of the GREEN, it reflects all radiation from GREEN.

            It swtiches from being charcoal into silver with that slight temperature difference!

            Again this is magical behavior not found in the real world or even in an idealized world. Not even close!”

          • mikeR says:

            My initial response to G*s latest comments is as follows,
            https://tinyurl.com/yaz49zvd .

            To elaborate g* wants to eliminate (i.e. cancel the two green rays as they are opposing) which I am in total agreement with and think is very reasonable. So we end up with this

            https://s20.postimg.org/r0d1phm7x/new_just_as_dumb_version.jpg

            as his new improved (but just as dumb) version. Do we really need to subject this version to the rigours of an Excel analysis for internal consistency?

            However if g* insists, then maybe he could commission an independent analysis (maybe the Heartland Institute could suggest someone with the appropriate expertise) to be done of any versions (past, present and future) you would like to generate.

            I dont count Tony as independent, if by any odd chance he was capable of performing any of the calculations. Anyway Tony may have left the building which is his first smart move.

            I was also highly amused with g*s correspondence with Nate and I have to add my pennys worth.

            Talk about creating energy from nowhere. According to g* a difference of 0.1 C between the plates could, according to the g* approved diagram, cause 200 W per sq. m. of radiant energy to be emitted. Can you imagine if it had been 1 degree difference or God forbid 10 degrees? Even more terrifying, what if this process of energy is non- linear, we could all be gone in a puff of smoke.

            In reality according Stefan and Boltzmann , 0.1 C difference would produce 0.33 W so maybe we are safe.

            However if g*’s view is correct, it could free the world from the shackles of energy dependence upon fossil fuels. G* should pass this information to the relevant authorities so that we can dispense with the expense of blue sky fusion research.

            Maybe g*s stupidity (which is an endless resource) could itself be adapted to produce energy.

          • mikeR says:

            G* I need to correct you on one matter . You stated above that-

            He now claims that the correct solution fails for two reasons. But, both reasons involve his incorrect 270 K temperature.

            You obviously did not look at the bottom right hand corner of https://s20.postimg.org/in6frkozh/Consistency_Tests.jpg showing the calculations for T1=T2=243.7. It failed miserably in that scenario as well.

            But I grant you one thing G*, you are quite correct. I did audition for a lead role in the latest sequel Dumb and Dumber Free. Unfortunately I failed the audition as they had some numeracy and logic tests involving arrows of various colours and questions about addition of numbers . I failed the audition (I am an awful actor) they said that required someone who is a natural at being both totally dumb and innumerate.

            Consequently I did suggest yourself, Tony, Gordon, SkepticGoneWild etc. (they may need understudies) as obvious candidates. The Hollywood movie moguls (if they still exist) would find it doubly appealing as you could perform your own material (just bring your comments along) which would eliminate the need to employ a bevy of screen writers.

          • Nate says:

            “In reality according Stefan and Boltzmann , 0.1 C difference would produce 0.33 W so maybe we are safe.”

            Clearly your mistake, Miker, is trying to live in the REAL WORLD, and not where G* lives, in his idealized G*world:

            G:”the problem is a thought experiment. It is NOT real world. So, he is trying to discredit the correct solution by discrediting the original problem”

            G:Since we are assuming perfect conditions, with no losses, we can assume all of the flux will be reflected.

            Unless the ‘real world, is more convenient for him (it all depends on his mood!):

            G:”In the real world, there are no perfect black bodies.”

            G:”barry, black bodies are used in thought experiments to make calculations easier. They do not exist in reality.”

            G: “In the real world, temperature affects both accepting and rejecting of photons.”

            G:”You still cant understand the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics. They apply, in the real world.”

            As usual, it is all quite confusing.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Nate had apparently sobered up yesterday, but was suffering from a bad hangover. All he could come up with was “cut and paste” of his previous inaccuracies. Then, he did a “cut and paste” of my quotes, trying to mis-represent them.

            No substance, just desperation.

            miker has now eliminated both green arrows between the plates. He’s having such a hard time understanding. Obviously, he has no formal training in QP.

            It’s okay to eliminate the green arrows, if it helps him understand the energy flow. There are still “green” photons moving between the plates, but there is NO heat transfer. So showing the two opposing green arrows is the most accurate representation.

            At lease miker seems to have dropped the 300 Watts/m^2 nonsense. So, that wipes out his two “reasons” he believed the correct solution was wrong. Now, he has to admit he has nothing, except his false beliefs.

            Funny.

          • Nate says:

            G* insists on be quoted directly, then objects when I do. So many G-rules! And so confusing.

            G* offers no substance, then complains of no substance.

            G*, your SB violations and magical plate behavior are substantive issues that you have failed to address.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Nate spins: “G* insists on be quoted directly, then objects when I do. So many G-rules! And so confusing.”

            FALSE. Nate, there is nothing wrong with quoting me directly. But, you must not then mis-represent the quote. It’s NOT confusing, unless you want it to be.

            Nate spins: “G* offers no substance, then complains of no substance.”

            FALSE: Nate, I continue to explain the correct solution to you. I offer plenty of substance, explaining, and even explaining in different ways, trying to help you understand. You run from the truth.

            Nate spins: “G*, your SB violations and magical plate behavior are substantive issues that you have failed to address.”

            FALSE. Nate, there are NO S/B violations, on my part. I haven’t “failed to address” anything. The failure is in your ability to understand.

            Nate, the above 3 examples are just more evidence that you refuse to understand. You don’t want truth. I can’t help you. From now on, your comments will be ignored. Blab to yourself all you want, if you believe that makes you appear smart.

          • Nate says:

            “FALSE. Nate, there are NO S/B violations, on my part. I havent failed to address anything. ”

            Lets be specific. Miker summarized our issues with your solution quite succinctly:

            There is simply no way, using the SB relation, to get heat transfer at the rate you desire, 200W/m^2, between two objects with a small temperature difference between them of 0.1K (or less).

            If you want to argue that there is a way, then I would ask you do so quantitatively and specifically. Show numbers. What material properties would work (emissivity, absorbtivity etc)?

            Hand waving about ‘ideal behavior’ or ‘its coming from the source’ or ‘photon acceptance’ are just words and not sufficient.

          • Nate says:

            G* You can ignore me. I don’t blame you. I’m not being easy on you.

            Sorry about that.

            But your physics problem can’t be ignored, well not forever. Miker, or someone else will bring it up again.

          • MikeR says:

            G*’s comment –
            miker has now eliminated both green arrows between the plates.

            Yes, but I was just following orders. You are the person who suggested that the green rays cancelled, which yes they do, but this leaves your model displaying its inadequacies in an even more overt manner.

            That is why I was very happy to illustrate your latest attempt.

            I think it is a sign of total desperation that. G* wanted me to take intellectual ownership of the diagram that I referred to, as just as dumb as the previous version.

            Yes, my illustration of g*’s very latest concept does indeed have 200 W being emitted from the blue plate but collapses in a heap if you apply the other thermodynamic criteria such as the 2nd L. O. T. and S. B. Law. That is why I referred to it as just as dumb, but in hindsight I should have referred to it as even dumber.

            Finally to hammer in the final nail, it looks like I will have to approach the idiocy from the opposite direction.

            Only one of us is correct.

            You (or anyone else here) have not objected, at any stage, to the calculations of radiant energies, temperatures etc. using Eli Rabbit’s model.

            If so why the silence? However if you want to correct the record speak now or forever hold your peace.

            Perhaps follow Tony who had the good sense to head for hills when he realised that the gig was up. I think we have all had enough of your squirming nonsense.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Nate incompetently states: “There is simply no way, using the SB relation, to get heat transfer at the rate you desire, 200W/m^2, between two objects with a small temperature difference between them of 0.1K (or less).”

            FALSE!

            (Watts/m^2)^4 = 5.67 * (244)^4/10^8

            Watts/m^2 = 201

            Try your next falsehood. But, don’t expect a response.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            miker erroneously claims: “You (or anyone else here) have not objected, at any stage, to the calculations of radiant energies, temperatures etc. using Eli Rabbits model.”

            FALSE!

            “The invalid solution fails because it has the cooler green plate warming the blue plate. Thats impossible. The only incoming energy is 400 W/m^2. So the MAXIMUM temperature the blue plate can ever achieve is the S/B temperature of 244K. To achieve a higher temperature, there would have to be ADDITIONAL energy from the outside source. Reflected energy from the green plate is not NEW energy to the system, and can not cause any increase in temperature.”

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-274992

            Try another falsehood, miker. That appears to be all you’ve got. But, don’t expect a response.

          • Nate says:

            G*

            “FALSE!

            (Watts/m^2)^4 = 5.67 * (244)^4/10^8

            Watts/m^2 = 201”

            Really!?? Are you trying to cheat, or are you just being really dumb?

            I don’t see the 0.1K difference anywhere in there? How does that factor in

            The correct eqn is this one (19.3). Try again:

            http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/propulsion/notes/node136.html

          • Nate says:

            Just to save you effort, heat flow between 2 plates, one at 244k the other at 243.9K, with e=1, using eqn 19.3 would give

            (Watts/m^2)^4 = 5.67 * [(244)^4-(243.9)^4]/10^8

            Watts/m^2 = 0.33.

          • Nate says:

            Correction (Watts/m^2)^4 should be Watts/m^2

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Nate, you are hilariously ignorant. The equation you have used if for radiative heat transfer between two objects, with NO additional energy entering the system. It does not apply in this situation.

            Please continue with your comedy. Don’t let facts and logic stand in your way.

          • MikeR says:

            G* your calculation below for the energy transfer between between two plates (ie. The net energy) is just for the energy emitted by one plate!

            Your equation is

            (Watts/m^2)^4 = 5.67 * (244)^4/10^8

            Watts/m^2 = 201.

            The other plate is emitting the same amount of energy because it is at the same temperature (if we accept your assumption they are both at 244 K which again is wrong) in which case the net energy transfer is zero, which is the standard and obvious result for two plates at equilibrium. If you can find any reference anywhere that states otherwise please let us all know.

            By the way the left hand side of your equation should not have ^4 in it. As you have written it the answer would have been 3.76 W/m^2.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            miker, you clowns are hilarious!

            I put the “^4” on the left side of the equation so both sides would be equal. If you take the fourth root of both sides, you get the correct answer. You could not even figure out simple algebra!

            Hilarious.

            And you and Nate continue to be humorously confused about the plates being at the same temperature, yet there is energy flow between them. You fail to understand that the energy flow is causing the temperatures, not the other way around. That’s why the radiative heat transfer equation is not valid here. For the radiative heat transfer equation to be used, the temperatures must be driving the energy flows.

            But, you will not understand, and will (hopefully) contribute more of your hilarious pseudoscience.

            Carry on.

          • Nate says:

            G* you really need to consider the possibility that you have some wrong ideas, and actually open your mind a bit. That is my suggestion, rather than digging yourself into deeper denial of reality.

            “You fail to understand that the energy flow is causing the temperatures, not the other way around. ”

            I think you know the 3 main mechanisms of heat transfer. They all relate to temp differences. Energy flow from a source is not a separate mechanism. The source does not just squirt heat in, it does it by the 3 mechanisms.

            For example if the blue starts out colder than the green, and 400 w is still input to blue, how does heat flow know what to do?

            Only T of plates tells it what to do. Initially heat flows from green to blue. The input is flowing into blue heat capacity. Then as T diff decreases heat flow from g to b decreases, crosses 0 and begins to flow from b to g, slowy inreasing as blue exceeds green until equil.

            As you can see heat input was always 400, but at all times heat flow between plates is given by temp diff, nothing else.

          • Nate says:

            of course work can produce heat also, but not in this setup

          • MikeR says:

            G*

            Your statement “Reflected energy from the green plate is not NEW energy to the system, and can not cause any increase in temperature. is just nonsense in this context – see my correspondence with Tony at http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-274904.

            Just to make it clear, yes the green plate does not add NEW energy to the SYSTEM! , it just backradiates the energy to the blue plate. If the surface of the green plate was a mirror reflecting the energy directly back to the blue plate, would you think it was creating NEW energy for the SYSTEM?

            Even in the era of Archimedes, the idea of using reflected light to increase the temperature of an object was well known see https://skullsinthestars.com/2010/02/07/mythbusters-were-scooped-by-130-years-archimedes-death-ray/. I am sure Archimedes knew then that no NEW energy was required.

          • Nate says:

            “Nate, you are hilariously ignorant. The equation you have used if for radiative heat transfer between two objects, with NO additional energy entering the system. It does not apply in this situation.”

            Sheesh!

            Do you see anywhere in the MIT link that puts that requirement on the validity of the equation? Anywhere else have this requirement? There is no such requirement.

            S-B heat-transfer between parallel surfaces is purely about the temperatures and emissivities of the surfaces, G*.

            Everything else is irrelevant. It doesnt matter whats going on on the other side of the plates, or what is keeping them at these temperatures.

            Can we assign temperatures T1 and T2 to the BLUE and GREEN plates (in steady state)? Yes. Then the equation applies.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            You boys are doing great! What fantastic comedy entertainment.

            Miker believes that focusing more sunlight is NOT adding new energy! Hilarious.

            And Nate still doesn’t have a clue where his equation applies and doesn’t apply.

            Hey Nate. What is the flux between an object at 400 K and and object at 300 K, if they are 2 kilometers apart.

            Hilarious.

          • Nate says:

            g*, you are getting more and more ridiculous, in order to defend the indefensible. Now you would ask us to disregard ordinary heat transfer as taught everywhere.

            Show us any legit source for your claim that eqn is not applicable. Anywhere. Any textbook. Find a web page on rad heat transfer that agrees with you.

            So many things would not work in the universe, if you are right.

            2LOT. If heat flow does not depend on T1 -T2, then how does heat know what the hell to do? Flow from cold to hot?

            No there is mechanism for 2LOT to arise. In this case it is rad heat transfer, via that eqn.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Hey Nate. What is the flux between an object at 400 K and and object at 300 K, if they are 2 kilometers apart.’

            Uhh..geometry of course matters, dufus. The eqn is for parallel close plates.

          • MikeR says:

            Oh g*e*r*a*n, g*e*r*a*n (sounds like a pop group from the 80’s). Why do you keep dumbing down? As Nate has also pointed out your are clearly in error.

            Taking the fourth root is only required if you are inverting the S-B to calculate the temperature from the energy not the other way around.

            Do I need to attach a spreadsheet outlining this massively complex calculation for g*? I hope not.

            This is also another test case for whether g* has the maturity to admit he is wrong. As I have said before, we all mistakes but it often takes an adult to admit to them.

            (Hilarious) ^4.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Yes miker, it was a typo. You are correct.

            But I wanted to give you a small dose of your own medicine, by attempting to cover the mistake with some “rambling nonsense”.

            How did it feel?

            As to admitting mistakes, how many have you admitted to on this thread? The “two reasons”, for example.

            Hilarious.

          • MikeR says:

            No g* reflected light does not add energy to the system of the sun,. mirror, object that receives the reflected light, as this would contravene the 2ND law of thermo. . It does add energy to the object that it is illuminated.

            If the plates are 2 km apart the effect is reduced by the relevant view factor. If the plates are 1 cm across then the reduction is enormous but if they were 10 km across the reduction would be minor. It depends on the ratio of the dimensions of the plate relative to the separation of the plates see figure 19.14 at
            http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node137.html .

          • MikeR says:

            G* I am glad you admit to your typo, but the fact you doubled down with the follow up comment was very illuminating.

            As for the “two reasons”, I will reluctantly, following g* ‘s example, link to my own link see – http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-275162.

            I believe the “two reasons” was adequately covered there.

          • MikeR says:

            I am afraid I have to give G* another serve. Sorry for the overkill.

            His claim that his original was a typo. Was his followup comment also a typo?

            “miker, you clowns are hilarious!

            I put the ^4 on the left side of the equation so both sides would be equal. If you take the fourth root of both sides, you get the correct answer. You could not even figure out simple algebra!

            Hilarious.”

            I think this kind of thing requires a separate apology from g* but I expect another diversion. Alternatively he may depart the scene which would be a blessed relief.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            miker can’t get anything right! He can’t understand the basic physics of the problem. He couldn’t understand about the typo, even when I explained it to him.

            And, the believes he is smart!

            Hilarious.

          • Nate says:

            G*,

            We’ve been discussing parallel plates at T1 and T2 in vacuum. I showed you the well known SB heat-transfer eqn for this situation, from an authoritative source.

            You say it does not apply.

            “You fail to understand that the energy flow is causing the temperatures, not the other way around. Thats why the radiative heat transfer equation is not valid here. For the radiative heat transfer equation to be used, the temperatures must be driving the energy flows”

            If this were true, we would not be able to solve many many heat transfer problems that we can now solve, with equations, such as these:

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-275546

            At this point your statement is just a feeling, an opinion. Thats not good enough.

            Please find some PROOF for this statement and show us! Unless you can show an AUTHORITATIVE source that agrees with this statement, then it is obviously made-up physics, misinformation.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Nate, you can not understand “proof”. The only “proof” you will accept is pseudoscience. I once offered an example of a simple electrical circuit, to explain how energy flow produces temperature. But, with your weak background in physics, you could not grasp the simple analogy.

            A simple circuit contains only a voltage source and a resistor. Neglecting all losses, the voltage across the resistor is the same as the voltage across the source. Yet, current flows.
            It’s exactly analogous to the plates problem. Temperatures are effectively equal, but energy flows between them. But, you don’t want anything that conflicts with your beliefs.

            It’s fun to watch.

          • Nate says:

            G*,

            You are clearly trying to operate beyond your skill level. And you seem to be unaware that that is a problem!

            If it was sufficient to use circuit models to understand heat transfer, then there would no need for separate courses!

            I will foolishly try to explain one more time with circuits in hopes you will understand. Feel free to tell me where you disagree.

            A resistor R, is connected between points 1 and 2. The flow of current through the resistor is (V1-V2)/R. It does not care a whit about anything else in the circuit!

            For the plates only T1 and T2 , emissivity (and geometry) determine heat flow between them. They dont care a whit about anything else.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Perfect example of your pseudoscience, Nate. You still have no understanding of the correct physics.

            A resistor does not supply energy to the circuit. The energy is supplied by the voltage source. The current through the resistor produces the V1 and V2. You’ve got it backwards, still.

            More hilarious examples of your misunderstanding, please.

          • Nate says:

            Uggghh!

            “The current through the resistor produces the V1 and V2.”

            Maybe or maybe not. Its a chicken-egg thing, and matters not a bit to my point.

            Do you see a battery voltage in the equation? No. There could be a very complicated circuit hidden in a box with wires 1 and 2 poking out.

            With R connected only the voltages on pts 1 and 2 matter.

            There must be a voltage DIFFERENCE, V1- V2 to get a flow of current! Only V1- V2 determines the current through R.

            There must be a temperature DIFFERENCE T1 -T2 to get a flow of heat! Only T1 and T2 determine the heat flow rate.

          • Nate says:

            “The current through the resistor produces the V1 and V2.”

            Don’t have 120V outlets at your house?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            The humor continues.

            “There must be a voltage DIFFERENCE, V1- V2 to get a flow of current! Only V1- V2 determines the current through R.”

            Nate, for the second time, a resistor is NOT an energy source. It is the voltage source that supplies the energy, that then allows non-zero V1 and V2. You remain utterly confused.

            “Dont have 120V outlets at your house?”

            That’s just silly, likely caused by your desperation.

            Hilarious.

          • Nate says:

            Are you trying to miss the point? Its working.

            1. If V1-V2 =0 is there a current? Yes or No

            2. If you measure V1 – V2 and know R can you determine the current? Yes/No

            3. Do you need any other information to determine the current? Yes/No

            Alright apply what youve learned to temperature and heat flow for parallel plates.

            1. If T1-T2 = 0 is there heat flow? Yes/No

            2. If we measure T1 and T2 and know emissivity can we determine heat flow? Yes/No

            3. Do you need any other information to determine heat flow? If yes, what? And show me the equation to use.

          • Nate says:

            The current through the resistor produces the V1 and V2.

            “Dont have 120V outlets at your house?”

            Quite slow on the uptake there G*.

            The 120V is there, even with nothing plugged in and NO current flowing.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Nate your ability to come up with new comedy material is impressive.

            Turn off the voltage source and see how long V1 and V2 last.

            Turn off the 400 Watts/m^2 to the blue plate and see how the plate temps drop.

            V1, V2, and plate temps are all established by the energy sources. You still can’t understand.

            But, you’re hilarious.

          • Nate says:

            G* you are brilliant. You brought up an analogy. Now you can’t even comprehend your own analogy!

            Answer the questions, and tell me what you learned about heat from YOUR analogy.

          • Nate says:

            “Turn off the voltage source and see how long V1 and V2 last.

            Turn off the 400 Watts/m^2 to the blue plate and see how the plate temps drop.

            V1, V2, and plate temps are all established by the energy sources.

            All these may be true, but irrelevant to CALCULATING the current or heat flow.

            To calculate you need and equation, either ohms law, or S-B law.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Nate tries to escape: “All these may be true, but irrelevant to CALCULATING the current or heat flow.”

            Nate, the point of the analogy is to teach you that the energy flow determines the plate temperatures. Once you understand that then you will understand you can not use the radiative heat transfer equation, which is only valid when the two objects receive no other energy.

            Now, do you continue down your escape hole, or do you move up the ladder of learning?

          • Nate says:

            g*, why havent you answered the questions? Are you afraid you may learn something?

          • Nate says:

            So lets summarize. G* wants me to look at circuits to learn about heat flow. When we do, we find current flow between point 1 and 2 proportional to voltage difference, V1-V2.

            This is ohms law, and it is true even when there is a source of voltage (or current).

            However for heat flow, somehow, G* continues to be confused , and thinks only T1 should be used to find heat flow between object 1 and 2.

            G* fails to learn from his own analogy.

            G* has a broken logic chip.

          • MikeR says:

            G*

            Your comment above –

            “miker cant get anything right! He cant understand the basic physics of the problem. He couldnt understand about the typo, even when I explained it to him.

            And, the believes he is smart!”

            I have never claimed to be smart. My only claim is to be smarter than you.

            This however is an extremely low bar to clear. Most people would trip over it.

            With regard to the typo refer to my previous comment and with regard to the physics re read our exchanges.

            If you think these exchanges display your knowledge of physics and intellectual prowess in a positive light then you have lowered the bar even further.

            p.s. I did say in my previous comment that g* would try and divert. Nate has followed g* down his rabbit hole and is busy demolishing him. Maybe Gordon with his vast knowledge of electronics could assist with the demolition?

          • MikeR says:

            G* very latest claim “the heat transfer equation, which is only valid when the two objects receive no other energy” (see above) is obviously based on the fact it doesn’t appear to work when applied his model of the plates .

            Of course, as it has been stated repeatedly, It does work if you assume no net energy transfer between the plates. This of course stuffs up the rest of the energy balance equations for his model. This is in contrast to the calculations using Eli Rabbit’s model where all these conditions are satisfied.

            We have been through all this ad nauseum and demonstrates the emetic quality of G*”s comments. They also have laxative properties He should open up a pharmacy.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Nate asks: ” why haven’t you answered the questions?”

            Sorry Nate, I didn’t see your last comment. The answers are 2 “yes”, 2 “no”, and 2 “indefinite”. I’m sure you can put them in the correct order.

            And, miker returns, with two rambling comments. Sorry miker, but there wasn’t enough pseudoscience to be very funny. Maybe try again later?

          • mikeR says:

            Nate,

            The inherent stupidity of g*’s argument starts with his initial framing of the problem –

            In his words – a simple circuit contains only a voltage source and a resistor. Neglecting all losses, the voltage across the resistor is the same as the voltage across the source. Yet, current flows

            In the electrical circuit described , the voltage drops across the resistor (or a network of resistors) equals the EMF of the source. This is accomplished by connecting both ends of the resistor(s) to the source.

            If this is supposed to a relevant analogy, then the energy flow through the plate system needs to return all of its energy to its source i.e. the sun.

            If this is the case then g* must believe David Appells claim that the earth heats the sun by reflection and back radiation (which happens to be true, however the increase is infinitesimal) but takes it way further. You would have, if all the energy is returning to the sun , an earth that would be a pretty inhospitable place to be , unless you like a temperature of 3 degrees K.

            I wonder where g* will take us next with his endless diversions.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            miker did come up with some more original pseudoscience. Now, he claims an electrical circuit is “proof” that the Sun can cool the Earth, all the way down to 3K! When he went to wiki to look up “electrical circuit”, he obviously missed that a resistive load dissipates energy.

            Hilarious.

            But, I guess Dumb and Dumber have given up on trying to foist their incorrect solution. Everything they threw at the correct solution has failed. I should go back and make a list. Maybe later. What they aren’t aware of is that there is still a lot more science in defense of the correct solution. A lot more that destroys the incorrect solution. I’m holding back, so as to get the maximum enjoyment out of their performance.

            I just love climate comedy.

          • MikeR says:

            I eagerly await your refutation of the Eli Rabbitt model.Will it include calculations?

            As for your electrical circuit model, it is, as we refer to in the trade, an open circuit. There is no path back to the origin (i.e. sun) for the energy leaving the system in either of the models in question . For the electric circuit analogy, I = 0 and the power across the resistor P = I^2 x R = 0. An explanation at an appropriate level for yourself can be found at http://www.explainthatstuff.com/electricity.html.
            See the start of the section about circuits

            The 3K temperature for the earth (or the plates) is the case which describes a model where there is a return of all the radiant energy back to the sun via some unknown mechanism . This corresponds to a battery and resistor where there is a return path.

            The other option is that you are trying to use the power dissipated by the resistor as, an an analog of the power received by one or both plates. Again P=O for or an open circuit and again the plates (or the earth) will receive this amount of power (i.e. 0) and T=3K.Take your pick.

            This is according to your bizarre battery and resistor model, not mine! Take ownership of your own stupidity.

          • MikeR says:

            G*, have you connected up your Christmas lights yet?

            If they are not working, you don’t need to call anu electrician. Just check whether you have connected the leads to both the +ve and -ve ends of the transformer. An open circuit will lead to much disappointment.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            miker returns, and he doesn’t disappoint.

            Grasping for straws, he has determined that the circuit I presented was an open circuit. How anyone can be so stupid as to try to misunderstand my straightforward description is, by itself, laughable:

            “A simple circuit contains only a voltage source and a resistor. Neglecting all losses, the voltage across the resistor is the same as the voltage across the source. Yet, current flows.”

            So, I indicated there was voltage across the resistor, and current flow (closed circuit). Yet miker, like some incoherent idiot, determines I = 0!

            Then, he continues with the “3K”. I guess he plans to go down with his pseudoscience. Priceless.

            Fun to watch.

          • Nate says:

            G* and Miker,

            Can we return to G* idea about SB not being valid:

            “The equation you have used if for radiative heat transfer between two objects, with NO additional energy entering the system. It does not apply in this situation.”

            A reminder the form of SB equation is:

            (W/m2)= sigma (T1^4 -T2^4)

            Do you still agree with this argument G*?

            You brought up circuits. The analog we discussed is current through a resistor. The analogous eqn is ohms law:

            I = (V1-V2)/R

            So does this equation apply in the situation where energy is supplied to the circuit? By a battery?

            Do you believe that Ohms Law (as stated above) does NOT apply in a circuit with a battery? YES?NO

            If NO, then by ANALOGY, you must agree that the SB equation (as stated above) ALSO applies in a situation where energy is input to the system.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Nate, your long rambling comment is filled with inaccuracies and twisted science.

            For one thing you keep referring to the radiative heat transfer equation as the “SB law”. That’s confusing. You need to do some research and learn how to correctly refer to both.

            The rest is so confusing I won’t even attempt to figure it you. You seem to be asking a question, but there are about 5 questions. It’s not my job to figure out your tangled confusion.

            Try just one question at a time. Limit the comment no more than 10 lines. Otherwise, it just becomes humorous, undecipherable, jibber-jabber.

            Proceed with caution.

          • MikeR says:

            G*, Sorry I misunderstood your concept. I humbly apologise for my error.

            See, it is not terrible to acknowledge one’s mistakes. Hopefully you can learn from my example.

            I now realise that you regarded one of the plates as being the battery and the other as the resistor. I assume the blue plate is the battery, but as both plates are at the same temperature it is hard to tell which is the battery and which is the resistor.

            This all makes marginally more sense than my previous interpretation, but your argument by analogy, that there is a net transfer of energy between the plates when they are at the same temperature falls in a heap when scrutinised.

            The battery is supplying current leaving from the positive terminal and the same current returns to the negative terminal of the battery. The NET current for the currents entering and leaving both the battery and resistor equals 0 (see Kirchoffs current law).

            This is essentially the same situation for the plates, as they radiate the same amount of radiation between each other (in opposite directions) and the NET energy transfer is zero, which is a result that is in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

            The other objection I have is that, according to your model, the presence of the green plate is supposed to leave the blue plate unaffected. In contrast, for your circuit analog, the introduction of the resistor drastically alters both the battery and resistor, as the battery now generates current and both dissipate energy (in the case of the battery via internal resistance).

            So overall your circuit analogy unsurprisingly does not disprove the laws of radiative transfer or any other laws of thermodynamics.

            I now continue to await eagerly for your detailed devastation of my calculations using the Eli Rabbit model. Please don’t keep us waiting too long. I can’t stand the suspense.

          • MikeR says:

            G*, apologies for the length of the above. I know your attention span is limited and you have difficulties following complicated arguments.

            I am signing off for the night now and I expect to read your devastating tweet when I awake. Good night.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            miker believes pounding on his keyboard is much better than facts and logic.

            He’s hilariously desperate.

          • Nate says:

            one at a time, ok:

            A resistor, R, is attached to points 1 and 2 in a circuit:

            I = (V1-V2)/R

            Do you believe that Ohms Law (as stated above) is valid in a circuit with a battery supplying the energy? YES/NO

          • Nate says:

            The form of SB law for 2 objects is here: No new name given to it:

            http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Nate says: “No new name given to it:”

            That’s why you always have to clarify. The heat transfer equation is not the same as the S/B equation. If you try to use the terms interchangeably, it just makes you look like you have no clue.

          • Nate says:

            So you agreed with that the fact that energy was supplied to a circuit by a battery, did NOT invalidate ohms law.

            Do you agree that in the analogy you make between circuits and heat flow, that current is analog to heat flow rate P/A, and voltage is the analog of temperature?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            of course.

            (You’re doing really good now, Nate. Don’t garbage it up with some twisted logic and pseudoscience. I’ll be watching. ..)

          • Nate says:

            Yay. Progress.

            Then the analog for ohms law would be P/A =(T1-T2)/R, where R is thermal resistance. Right/

            Of course this is conduction, not relevant here.

            For radiation the closest analog law would be SB:

            P/A = e sigma (T1^4-T2^4)

            The analogy is not perfect here, but still i think this is a reasonable choice. It still describes the flow of heat between 2 points at different temperatures. Do you agree? If not why not?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Nate, you’re still using “SB” for the heat transfer equation. That is NOT progress.

            And, it’s a little clumsy trying to compare that equation to Ohm’s law. I’ll go along with the crude analogy for now, but be careful of pitfalls.

          • Nate says:

            OK. Lets call it the radiation law.

            Now you have agreed that ohms law was valid, even when energy was supplied from a source to a circuit.

            Therefore, following the analogy, we should say that the radiation law is valid even when energy is supplied from a source to the system ( a plate for example).

            Agree? If not, explain this departure from your analogy with circuits.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            No, call it what it’s called in physics, the “radiative heat transfer” equation. That way no one will be confused. Of course, the peddlers of pseudoscience are always confused, so we can’t help them.

            The radiative heat transfer equation is NOT universal. That is, you do not get to just use it anywhere, anyway. One of the situations where if fails is here with the blue/green plates. And, the reason it fails is because only one plate is being heated.

            To demonstrate the failure, consider both plates in perfect contact, heated by the 400 Watts/m^2 source. The two plates would have an equilibrium temp of 244K.

            Now, move the plates slightly apart, say 1mm, without allowing any radiative losses. The temperature of the blue plate can NOT automatically rise to 262K just because the radiative heat transfer equation gives that result. There is no additional energy entering the “system”, so the blue plate remains at 244K.

            Put the plates together again–244K. Take them apart–244K. No violation of Laws of Thermodynamics.

          • Nate says:

            G*,

            Ok so you drop the ball. You want to depart from the analogy.

            You say ohm’s law is universal but the radiative heat transfer law is not. What alternative is there then?

            We were discussing the fundamentals. What equations apply in general.

            Now you return to an example where you THINK you know what should happen, and the equations dont agree. Therefore you think the equation must be wrong.

            That is not a convincing argument, what you think happens may not be correct.

            The equations are meant to tell us what the answers are, not the other way around.

            You cant solve circuit problems without rules like ohms law, Kirchoffs law etc. Same for heat transfer.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            When you hit that brick wall, you suddenly run out of questions, and start the long rambling nonsense.

            Hilarious.

          • Nate says:

            “Brick wall” which logic cannot penetrate.

            We were talking fundamentals, and you suddenly switched to rambling and hand waving, G*.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Run out of questions”. No

            ‘You say ohms law is universal but the radiative heat transfer law is not. What alternative is there then?’

          • Nate says:

            Now, move the plates slightly apart, say 1mm, without allowing any radiative losses. The temperature of the blue plate can NOT automatically rise to 262K just because the radiative heat transfer equation gives that result. There is no additional energy entering the system, so the blue plate remains at 244K.’

            G* this is rambling at its finest, and makes no sense. Energy is obviously entering the system!

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Nate charges: “G* this is rambling at its finest, and makes no sense. Energy is obviously entering the system!”

            Nate, my poor uneducated, brain-washed, toady friend, do you not even understand the word “additional”?

            “There is no additional energy entering the system. ..”

            Hilarious!

          • Nate says:

            “Additional’

            G* you are once again confused with power vs energy.

            I’m being altogether serious when I say that I don’t think you have the logical mind required for science.

            You continually get caught up in illogical thinking, and you are unable to let go of misconceptions.

            Just not your thing. That’s ok.

            But you have to realize it.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Rambling desperately, or desperate rambling?

            Hilarious, either way.

          • MikeR says:

            G* you disappoint me. I woke this morning fully expecting you to deliver on your promise to deliver the coup de grace to my stupid belief that the blue plate will be affected by the green plate (similar to cennecting the resistor to the battery will obviously impact upon the battery),

            No answer, quelle surprise. Probably too busy being eviscerated by Nate.

            However your circuit model did clarify one thing other than your ability for diversion by creating inappropriate analogies

            The resistor is affected by the battery (after it is connected to it). Likewise we can consider the plate system from the perspective of the green plate.. It is just sitting there bathing in sunlight receiving 400 W and is at a temperature of 244 K (I think we all agree with that one). It is then moved to a location where the sun is being blocked by the blue plate.

            What will happen to the temperature of the green plate when it is placed in the shadow of the blue plate ? Does the

            1. temperature of the green plate increase or

            2. nothing happens to the temperature or

            3. The temperature decreases?

            So while we wait for your detailed refutation of the Eli Rabbit model, can you indicate your answer to the above with some details preferably? .

            For bonus points, can you relate your answer to what you would expect to feel with respect to temperature when you move from the direct sunlight to under the shade on a hot sunny day?

            For even more bonus points, can you suggest which answer corresponds to your model where both plates remain at 244K and which answer corresponds to the model where the temperature drops to 220 K?

            I fully expect g* to avoid answering with any detail. Or answering at all. He is, almost guaranteed to reply with a suggestion that he cannot understand the questions because it taxes his capacity to concentrate. Perhaps he will just find another diversion.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            miker, I think I counted 5-6 question marks, but not one coherent question.

            And your comment was so long I only skimmed your errant rambling.

            Perhaps you lost your copy of the rules:

            1) Omit all personal attacks, including your assumptions of what you believe are my thoughts. You have little knowledge of the science here, so you need to learn, not preach.

            2) Limit your comment to 10 lines MAX.

            3) Only consider ONE topic or question per comment.

            Hope that helps.

            Please feel welcome to try again.

          • mikeR says:

            G* ,I am getting sick of “whack a mole” so i will just simplify my last comment.

            What will happen to the temperature of the green plate when it is placed in the shadow of the blue plate ? Does the

            1. temperature of the green plate increase or

            2. nothing happens to the temperature or

            3. The temperature decreases?

            A word of explanation may also be required. I hope this not too onerous.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Assuming the green plate temp is below blue plate temp, and the green plate is brought very close to the blue plate, then green plate will warm.

            It will continue to warm until it gets close to the blue plate temp.

            (Thanks for keeping your question answerable.)

          • mikeR says:

            G*, I thought I made it clear from the previous question the green plate was in the sun and was therefore at the agreed temperature of 244 K.

            So I will repeat the question,

            What will happen to the temperature of the green plate when it is placed in the shadow of the blue plate ? Does the

            1. temperature of the green plate increase or

            2. nothing happens to the temperature or

            3. The temperature decreases?

            Again a few word of explanation would be a good idea.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            If the green plate is already at 244K, and you bring it close to the radiated blue plate, then the green plate will maintain 244K.

          • MikeR says:

            G*, I think we might be getting there.

            If the plate is directly behind the blue plate with respect to the sun so it is no longer receiving the full. 400 W of radiant energy from sun (i.e. in the shadow), in your opinion, it will not cool.

            Interesting.

            Please justify.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            miker begs: “Please justify.”

            miker, are you that dense? Have I not explained that numerous times?

            Look at your own graphic. Are you in denial?

            You want back-radiation to be true so much it hurts.

            Pain should tell you something.

          • mikeR says:

            G* politely states with his usual amount of charm –

            “miker, are you that dense? Have I not explained that numerous times?
            Look at your own graphic. Are you in denial? ”

            Yes G*, I must be the stupidest person on earth. So explain it again, Sam . Just one more time Sam, but this time with feeling.

            You can use words of more than syllable if you like so I can comprehend your concept.

            I can draw a new diagram again (just for the green plate using the KISS principle) if requested but g* is either visually impaired or not amenable to logic.

            To restate g*’s position (if this is incorrect statement of your position g*, then w.t.f. have you been on about?) –

            The green plate was receiving 400 W of radiation from the sun before it was placed behind the blue plate and now only receives 200 W of radiation (according to g*’s scheme). G*s claim that, despite this, its temperature stays the same!!!!

            This clearly does not compute! Particularly if you have a naive belief in thermodynamic laws such as the conservation of energy.

            Clearly only liberals and alarmists would believe in such nonsense.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            miker, if you would go back and study all my comments, and yours, you would see that YOU are the one making you look stupid. I explain and explain. Even helped you with the graphic. You keep trying NOT to understand.

            Then, you attempt to blame me.

            Hilarious.

            Now, once again, the green plate was receiving 400 Watts/m^2, and emitting 200 Watts/m^2 from each side, providing the equilibrium temperature of 244K.

            When it was positioned close behind the blue plate, also at equilibrium, the green plate was then receiving 200 Watts/m^2 (net) from the blue plate, and emitting 200 Watts/m^2 to space, maintaining the 244K temperature.

            Study the approved graphic. Put as much effort into studying as you do with your snarky, long-winded comments. That would be constructive.

          • Nate says:

            G*,

            Just to clarify (or further confuse!), you said this:

            “The equation you have used if for radiative heat transfer between two objects, with NO additional energy entering the system. It does not apply in this situation.

            So far so good (bad), then after analyzing circuits, and agreeing that Ohms Law (analogous to rad heat transfer eqn) is still valid even when the system is receiving energy, you said this:

            “The radiative heat transfer equation is NOT universal. That is, you do not get to just use it anywhere, anyway. One of the situations where if fails is here with the blue/green plates. And, the reason it fails is because only one plate is being heated.”

            This is confusing, and a seemingly DIFFERENT reason for the eqn to be invalid. So many different G-rules!

            So my question is this, in the BLUE plate by itself case, with sun shining on it, AND with a background universe at a higher temperature Tu > 0, would the eqn be valid to use?

            Again, the eqn as shown here:

            http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            With one T equal to zero, the radiative heat transfer equation reduces to just the S/B equation. So yes, it applies.

            What will you try next?

          • Nate says:

            So it does apply if the second object is the surrounding universe, and heat is supplied to the plate., but it does no apply if the second object is another plare?

            Why the difference? How do you determine when it is valid and when not?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Any time you get in a situation that violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, you know something is wrong.

          • Nate says:

            G* your rules for determining the validity of the eqn, so far, seem to change over time.

            If a student would like to learn how to solve heat transfer problems, where can they go to find these rules, or example problems that use them? I have not seen them anywhere.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Nate wants to know: “If a student would like to learn how to solve heat transfer problems, where can they go to find these rules, or example problems that use them?”

            Take upper level courses in physics, thermodynamics, and heat transfer.

            Nate admits: “I have not seen them anywhere.”

            Obviously.

          • Nate says:

            “Take upper level courses in physics, thermodynamics, and heat transfer.”

            Indeed, I have done the first two of these, and use heat transfer theory in my work. You? As I said, I have not seen these rules anywhere.

            How can a reader of your posts be sure that these rules are not just arbitrary and made-up?

            Point me to a on-line source that has these rules.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            “Indeed, I have done the first two of these. ..”

            Now Nate, have you really had upper level courses in physics and thermo? Or did you just imagine you did?

            You know you have a very vivid imagination. How many times have I caught you imagining I said things that I didn’t say?

            A vivid imagination is fine for fiction, but you need to separate fact from fiction. Establishing a presence here as someone that confuses imagination with truth can leave you with very little credibility.

          • Nate says:

            Yes, and no. Good try at distraction.

            Awaiting your answer.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Sorry Nate, I see no evidence that you understand these subjects, let alone have had advanced courses. Why all of the confusion over basic concepts? Why all the questions about the concepts. Why do you get the radiative heat transfer equation confused with the S/B equation?

            Then combine all of your confusion with your vivid imagination.

            Now, I’m supposed to believe you?

          • Nate says:

            G* the eqn is often called the S-B law, as here:

            http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c2

            But more distraction from the issue at hand.

            Clearly you cannot point to a source for your version of heat transfer.

            Because there isn’t such a source.

            Then we have to assume that you are pulling these heat transfer ‘rules’ out of your ass.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Nate insists: ” the eqn is often called the S-B law”

            Nate what you lack in knowledge of physics, you make up for in rock-headed stubbornness.

            How many times have I had to explain this to you?

            If the equation involves ONE “T”, it is the S/B equation. If the equation involves TWO “T’s”, it is the radiative heat transfer equation. Is that easy enough?

            Maybe if you write that on your forehead. ..

          • Nate says:

            G*,

            Well, then you need to correct the physics/astro dept at GSU.

            G* hyper-focusing on what things are called is what botanists do.

            Physicists focus on solving problems using the correct equations.

            You tried to solve for radiative heat transfer between two objects using the wrong equation, the one for SB radiation from a single object. That is wrong. And I had to point it out to YOU.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-275467

            You fraudulently pretend that you know this subject. But you clearly do not.

            And you are spreading misinformation.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Nate spouts: “Well, then you need to correct the physics/astro dept at GSU.”

            No Nate, GSU has it right. You don’t have enough physics background to understand their web page. It’s there for everyone to see, as is your fake “advanced” courses.

            Hilarious.

            And your vivid imagination leads you to believe that I used the wrong equation. Again, you simply don’t have the background to know that you are duping yourself.

            On some other thread, I remember describing you as “flat tires”. That was because you had run out of imaginative ideas. Well here, all your tires are flat, you’re out of gas, and someone stole your engine!

            Hilarious.

            (And, I won’t be responding to any of your nonsense, so have a blast writing to yourself.)

          • Nate says:

            “No nate GSU has it right’.

            If so then you have it wrong. Look again:

            G* the eqn is often called the S-B law, as here:

            http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c2

          • mikeR says:

            G* , above –

            Now, once again, the green plate was receiving 400 Watts/m^2, and emitting 200 Watts/m^2 from each side, providing the equilibrium temperature of 244K.
            When it was positioned close behind the blue plate, also at equilibrium, the green plate was then receiving 200 Watts/m^2 (net) from the blue plate, and emitting 200 Watts/m^2 to space, maintaining the 244K temperature.

            For the latter case where the green plates is receiving 200 W, the plate would emit 100 W from each side (for the former case it emitted 200 W from each side). This corresponds to 205 K., not 244 K.
            Do the math if you can.
            If you claim it does not emit 100 W from each side, then the emissivity is different on each side and the green plate is no longer a thermodynamic black body.

            The magical green plate changes from a blackbody to something when it is shaded by the blue plate!

            So my very last final set of questions (hopefully) are

            1.Does the green plate when it receives 200 W, emit 100 W from each side or do you insist it emits 200 W from only side?

            2. If your answer is the latter then what would be the emissivities of each side?,

            3. and can a black body have an emissivity different from 1?

            As I am so dumb please don’t just refer to a previous reply and try to explain your answers.

            G*,with regard to your persistent use of the term hilarious, other than annoying, it is clearly self-referential , so if you want to persist in using this then we all know who you are referring to.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            miker indicates he did not study: “For the latter case where the green plates is receiving 200 W, the plate would emit 100 W from each side”

            miker, why can’t you understand your own graphic? The green plate is emitting in both directions, but there is no heat transfer to the blue plate. Consequently the only heat transfer is to the right. Consequently the green plate is at a temperature of 244 K, same as the blue plate.

            I remember how hard it was for you to get the color-coding correct. I had to help you with such a simple task. And apparently, you still can’t figure it out.

            But, you’re completely sure that you’re right!

            Hilarious.

          • Tony says:

            Nearly a week since I left, what do I find when I return? Arguments going round and round in circles, exactly as I predicted! The same things which have been said already, in previous discussions, just brought up again; as if they hadnt already been refuted. Now were back to here again:

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-274584

            Its as if MikeR thinks the view factors between the sun and the blue plate are the same as between the blue and green plates! And Nate doesnt know the difference between the SB law and the radiative heat transfer equation, yet wants to lecture g*e*r*a*n. Indeed, its hilarious.

            OK, some predictions for when I check back in another weeks time:

            1) Once again, lots of childish baiting about how Ive fled the scene etc.
            2) Trick/Ball4 arrives to go on about testing.
            3) The same discussion (probably carrying on further downthread) just going on and on, round and round in circles.
            4) Continued diversion from the 244K when pressed together/different temperatures when separated stupidity.
            5) More relentless character assassination attempts of g*e*r*a*n, demonstrating only how much what hes saying seems to scare them.

          • Nate says:

            Tony,

            Your friend, G*, is not someone to admire. He is a fraud. Just read some of his posts.

            Some highlights: he believes the radiative heat transfer from an object at

            244K to one at 243.9K, will be 200 W/m^2.

            If you can defend this, feel free to try.

          • Nate says:

            Tony,
            “relentless character assassination attempts of g*e*r*a*n.”

            Not really. G* made claims of heat transfer ‘rules’ that none of us have seen before. These ‘explain’ his use of wrong eqn.

            We quite reasonably ask, where do these new rules come from? Show us where. Show us a source.

            He cannot. He dodges, he distracts, hurls insults.

            What choice do we have, but to conclude that G* has made up these rules?

            Feel free to show us the source.

          • MikeR says:

            G* states above –

            “miker, why cant you understand your own graphic?”

            This is the thanks I get for reproducing G*s inane concept. I remind you that this diagram met with your approval as being an accurate representation of your thoughts. Again take ownership of your own lunacies g*. I didn’t call it I’m with stupid.jpg for nothing.

            According to g* there is no heat transferred to the blue plate from the radiation leaving the green plate! It must arrive at the blue pLate unless this plate had had its deflector shields installed and turned on. Maybe some Vulcan magic from Mr Spock

            So let’s get this straight,

            1. the green plate, despite it being in the shadow of the blue plate, absorbs the same energy as the blue plate!

            2. the green plate then reemits the energy back towards the blue plate but for some reason it does not reach the blue plate or transfer its energy. Could it be due to cancellation by the radiation repented by mysterious green arrow pointing towards (“emitted by in g* words) the green plate in the diagram in question

            https://s20.postimg.org/av6u36vbh/I_m_with_stupid.jpg ?

            Maybe the blue plate becomes transparent or the emissivity of its surface suddenly becomes zero and it reflects the radiation.

            Mr Spock’s deflector shields is by far the most plausible of these explanations.

            I might be stupid according to g*, but only someone way more stupider, such as Tony, could fall for this.

          • MikeR says:

            G*, I know it’s morning where you are, but it’s very late here so I am about to retire for the night.

            G* you promised me a couple of days ago that you would blow my arguments out the water, sometime in the future.

            When can you deliver upon your promise with a devastating critique of my calculations using Eli Rabbett’s equations?

            I generously provided you with my Excel calcutions that could be downloaded from my Google drive. Why haven’t you have availed yourself of this glorious opportunity to rip my calculations to shreds or even provide some calculations that verify your model ?

            I am hoping against hope that when I awake you have demonstrated your prowess with Excel. You could also use other tools such as Matlab or Mathematica for the task.

            I am sure Tony whose understanding of Excel spreadsheets (and view factors) is legendary and could be of great assistance. If not he can get you a coffee from Starbucks as you beaver away.

            Good night and good luck.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Yes Tony, you are correct. They are very predictable.

            I think it is due to the fact that they all share the same personality-type. It’s an interesting study in human psychology.

            The more I draw them out, the more they reveal their true character.

            It’s fun to watch.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            miker continues to mis-understand: “1. the green plate, despite it being in the shadow of the blue plate, absorbs the same energy as the blue plate!”

            miker, the blue plate absorbs 400 Watts/m^2. The green plate absorbs 200 Watts/m^2, from the blue plate. But, if you believe 400 is the same as 200, go for it.

            And, since you requested, I am waiting for the right time to reveal some more actual science. Don’t worry, you will find some way to deny it. That only adds to the hilarity.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Its an interesting study in human psychology.’

            Yes G* I have often often been puszzled how you can be so confused and so unqualified to judge others, and yet you repeatedly insist that it is the others that are confused and unqualified.

            This may be the explanation:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU

          • Nate says:

            I guess Tony is a suicide bomber.

            He shows up, throws bombs, and when challenged, vaporizes.

          • mikeR says:

            G* states in his comment-

            Miker, the blue plate absorbs 400 Watts/m^2. The green plate absorbs 200 Watts/m^2, from the blue plate. But, if you believe 400 is the same as 200, go for it.

            Yes 400 = 200 is one of the solutions that can resolve the internal inconsistencies of the g* model.

            It reminds me of when, in the dim distant past, I was an academic and I would receive unsolicited letters from members of the public claiming to have overthrown conventional physics . I would read them for amusement of the train home from work. A significant number , when distilled down to its essence used the equalities 1/0 = infinity , 2/0 = infinity and ergo 1=2.

            So I am used to dealing with crackpots. I am a bit rusty but you guys allow me to relive the past. Keep it up.

          • mikeR says:

            And g*..can you take the above one step further? .Recall I am very dumb so you need to explain it in more detail, so could please kindly fill in the gaps.

            1..the temperature of the blue plate is._____? ( reminder it is absorbing 400 W and emitting 200 W from each side) and

            2. the temperature of the green plate is ____? ( if it is absorbing 200 W and emitting 100 W ) or alternatively the temperature is ____ for the side of the green plate that is emitting all the 200 W and then the temperature ____ for the other side emitting 0 W.

            There is, a third logical step for g* and that is to check whether the temperature of both plates is the same (in particular for each side for the green plate) as he claims.

            For the sake of completeness he could indicate whether the net radiation between the plates is zero and thereby satisfies this requirement imposed by the second law of thermodynamics for two objects in thermal equilibrium

            I know that the use of logic and g* in close proximity above , is an oxymoron (emphasis on the last two syllables) so please forgive

          • mikeR says:

            I hope I am not going to distract g* from his task to fill in the blanks above but I must state the following.

            G*s main virtue is that he never fail to disappoint. No sign of his threatened calculations or any other sign of his magnus opus. Just some vague comment about biding his time. Remember time waits for no man. So can you g* , give some indication when this work will be ready to be revealed to the world? Have you any plans for the film rights?

            Is it going to take days, months or even years of laborious calculations. using the tools at your fingertips plus, the fingers and toes and Tony. (I am sure Gordon could also lend a hand)?

            Is it going to require more pairs of cancelling arrows of many colours. Are you going to be restricted by the blue /green palette or employ the full gamut of colours that a 24 bit graphics card can supply. This could be a long wait and beware even Einstein never finished his grand universal theory.

            I think I might return to my beauty sleep and g* can awaken me (no kiss on the cheek required) upon completion of his masterpiece and remember to fill in the blanks above.

          • Nate says:

            G*: “And, I wont be responding to any of your nonsense, so have a blast writing to yourself.)

            Thank god.

            I didnt realize G* was such a delicate flower, given the hundreds of insults he has sent my way.

            Doesnt he know the Second Law

            of slayerdynamics:

            The net flow of abuse always flows from slayers to the rest of humanity.

            Although slayers often confuse net and one-way flows. They only count the flow of abuse towards them.

          • mikeR says:

            Good work Nate,

            I wonder if that statement now includes myself?

            G*: And, I wont be responding to any of your nonsense, so have a blast writing to yourself.”

            If so, my only sense of disappointment is that g* will have fled the scene before adequately explaining his nonsense. I was really hoping for his masterpiece.

            But no longer having to deal with g* is also a blessed relief in that we will no longer have to endure his demented outbursts of hilarity.

          • Nate says:

            Hope you’re right, miker..

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Wow miker, you’ve commented 4 times since I did, and still no substance. You’re still arguing that 400 = 200. You’re still getting the flux wrong (can’t understand your own graphic), you now you believe the green plate is emitting 100, instead of 200!

            You’re a mess.

            (But, hilarious.)

          • MikeR says:

            OK g* you have came back for some more. Glutton for punishment.

            Note I said above . To quote

            “Yes, 400 = 200 is one of the solutions that can resolve the internal inconsistencies of the g* model.”

            Which happens to be true (not 400 =200 obviously), but that your nonsensical model requires this.

            It would also require 100 W from either side if you had bothered to read my previous comment.

            You complain in your comments to Nate that you are the victim of adhoms, but in reality you are also the main victim of your own stupidity .

            Perhaps if you made comments which were sane then you might avoid the adhoms.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            miker, you say something, I show you it is wrong, then you say it’s not what you said, then you say it again, and again, I point out it is wrong, then you say it’s my fault!

            You’re a mess!

            Hilarious.

          • mikeR says:

            G*,

            You complain that my comments are too long to cope with. Then you object that, when I break them up, then you are overwhelmed by three consecutive comments.

            Of course it was your fault! You came up with your ridiculous model. Take ownership.

            Anything to avoid the very simple homework test that tests your IQ which I repeat is,

            so could you please kindly fill in the gaps.
            1.the temperature of the blue plate is._____? ( reminder it is absorbing 400 W and emitting 200 W from each side) and

            2. the temperature of the green plate is ____? ( if it is absorbing 200 W and emitting 100 W ) or alternatively the temperature is ____ for the side of the green plate that is emitting all the 200 W and then the temperature ____ for the other side emitting 0 W.

            3. Please explain how your model is consistent with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

            Also when are you going to come up with your wonderful explanation and calculations that are going to overwhelm us all with their brilliance?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            “1.the temperature of the blue plate is._____?”

            See the approved graphic, for the umpteenth time!

            “2. the temperature of the green plate is ____? ( if it is absorbing 200 W and emitting 100 W ) or alternatively the temperature is ____ for the side of the green plate that is emitting all the 200 W and then the temperature ____ for the other side emitting 0 W.”

            See the approved graphic, for the umpteenth + 1 time! (And no, it is NOT emitting 100W. You just can’t understand your own graphic.)

            “3. Please explain how your model is consistent with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.”

            All energy is accounted for, and “cold” does not warm “hot”.

            “4. Also when are you going to come up with your wonderful explanation and calculations that are going to overwhelm us all with their brilliance?”

            I will sneak it in so that purveyors of pseudoscience don’t know.

          • mikeR says:

            G*,
            So these are your answers?

            1. The temperature of the blue plate is 244k? and

            2. the temperature of the green plate is also 244 K

            So the energy flow if it is absorbing 200 W and emitting and radiating 200 W from each side is using g*s famous 200=400 conundrum . Alternatively the green plate is only emitting 200 W from one side and 0 W from the other side and is violating the S-B Law.

            Also please explain how your model, depending on which version that you are currently peddling,that has a net flow of 200W between the blue and green plates is consistent with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You know the one, that states that net flow of energy between objects at the same temperature is zero.

            Dont just try and squirm out and simply refer without any other comment to my attempts at renditions of your fantasies at https://s20.postimg.org/av6u36vbh/I_m_with_stupid.jpg
            or
            https://s20.postimg.org/r0d1phm7x/new_just_as_dumb_version.jpg .

            Explain yourself if you can. Stop avoiding these questions. I know avoidance is clearly your major talent.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            miker, I can’t believe that you want to be so stupid.

            “So the energy flow if it is absorbing 200 W and emitting and radiating 200 W from each side is using g*s famous 200=400 conundrum.”

            FALSE!

            “Alternatively the green plate is only emitting 200 W from one side and 0 W from the other side and is violating the S-B Law.”

            FALSE!

            miker, due to your continued mis-representations, you must go back in the penalty box. For me to respond, you must, again, exactly follow the rules:

            1) Omit all personal attacks, including your assumptions of what you believe are my thoughts.

            2) Limit your comment to 10 lines MAX.

            3) Only consider ONE topic or question per comment.

            Thanks for your cooperation.

          • MikeR says:

            G*

            So your answers are FALSE and FALSE. Can you please elaborate? Maybe explain why your answers are consistent with thermodynamics.

          • MikeR says:

            Sorry g* I do have to add that you need to explain if these are both false, then how much radiation is being emitted from each side of the green plate?

            Also what is the net radiation between the two plates?

            Just answer the questions and stop fkn around.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            miker, all of your questions are answered by the graphic.

            https://postimg.org/image/y9etf4d8p/

            You are the one fkn around.

            If you actually need help, just follow the rules.

          • MikeR says:

            This is like extracting teeth. I called that diagram “I am with stupid.Jpg” for good reason and I think it is nonsense but that us just my opinion.

            You tell me, in your opinion, how much radiation is being emitted from each side of the green plate?

            Also in your opinion, what is the net radiation between the two plates?

            How will g* avoid answering these questions?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            miker, you have earned the “stupid” title.

            So stupid, here are the answers:

            “You tell me, in your opinion, how much radiation is being emitted from each side of the green plate?”

            200 Watts/m^2, just as the graphic indicates, stupid.

            “Also in your opinion, what is the net radiation between the two plates?”

            200 Watts/m^2, just as the graphic indicates, stupid.

            Anymore stupid questions, stupid?

          • MikeR says:

            So it comes to this, according to you 200 W is being emitted from each side of the green plate. This means 400 W is entering the green plate,

            Please provide a coherent explanation of how the green plate which is shaded by the blue plate can receives the same amount of radiation as the blue plate (that is directly exposed to the sun).

            An ancillary question, Have you moved from a sunny place to a shaded place and perhaos perceived a drop in temperature?

            if you have never done it, try it and let us know

          • MikeR says:

            I will take an incoherent explanation as well. I am feeling generous.

            2 am here and I am off to sleep. Hope to hear your explanation when I awake

            p s. Any progress on the treatise that you promised. The one
            that will take us all by surprise.

          • MikeR says:

            G*

            What a disappointment you are! I hope your family and friends are not reading our exchange of comments. They would be equally disappointed.

            I was expecting a reasoned response to my question, when I awoke, but all I got again wa just a link back to an earlier comment. One which I had already dealt with. No sign of any additional explanation.

            So yet again gain , I have to repeat my last questions.

            According to you, 200 W is being emitted from each side of the green plate. This means 400 W is entering the green plate,

            1. Please provide a coherent explanation of how the green plate which is shaded by the blue plate can receives the same amount of radiation as the blue plate (that is directly exposed to the sun) and

            2. An ancillary question. Have you moved from a sunny place to a shaded place and perhaps perceived a drop in temperature?

            How will g* avoid answering the above?

            Will it just be a link back to an earlier comment of his or again a comment free link to the nonsensical diagram, “I am with stupid.jpg”. His last comment was both.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Oh dear miker, it appears you lost your copy of the rules.

            Here you go:

            1) Omit all personal attacks, including your assumptions of what you believe are my thoughts.
            2) Limit your comment to 10 lines MAX.
            3) Only consider ONE topic or question per comment.

            Always glad to help.

          • mikeR says:

            I am sorry that this comment may exceed g* s requirements for no more than 10 lines.

            I am sure that if he puts his mind to it, he can cope, particularly if he reads it 10 lines at a time and then takes a half hour break to recover from the ordeal.

            G*s other requirement for civil discourse was particularly amusing as he made this same request just above (at 5:11am) and then proceeded to call me stupid 5 times in a single 8 line comment some three hours later (8:10 am)!

            I am not sure what I did to offend him during that interval other than to just ask questions which of course he avoided answering by employing his usual tactics.

            So I have to repeat for the third time.

            According to g*, 200 W is being emitted from each side of the green plate. This means 400 W is entering the green plate.

            So G*,

            1. Please provide a coherent explanation of how the green plate which is shaded by the blue plate can receives the same amount of radiation as the blue plate (that is directly exposed to the sun) and

            2. An ancillary question. Have you moved from a sunny place to a shaded place and perhaps perceived a drop in temperature?

            Has g* exhausted his repertoire of avoidance techniques or do we have to go through a g* charade again? I hope not.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            miker, the rules are imposed for your protection. Once it has been determined that you suffer from OCD, it is important to limit your addiction to keyboarding. Excessive keyboarding can be hazardous to a persons mental health. (There are too many pathetic examples.)

            If you go back in the comments, you will observe that you could not obey the rules. You were sent to the penalty box for repeated stupid questions and false accusations. You were out of control.

            I had to slap you down. I dont like doing so, but it’s for your own good.

            Just obey the rules and you will likely do much better.

            As always, glad to help.

          • mikeR says:

            So G* has an inexhaustible supply of avoidance mechanisms.

            He clearly is totally incapable of answering the most basic of questions and is one of the most annoying individuals I have had the displeasure of dealing with.

            This is probably the reason why his name has been filtered out and has had to adopt the g*e*r*a*n nom de guerre. Don’t bother trying to refer to him here without the asterisks.

            I can understand Roy Spencer’s reluctance to extend the filter to catch his asterisked endowed name. G*e*r*a*n can evolve and evade Roy Spencer’s immune response and become g#e#r#a#n or g%e%r%a%n with a single point mutation.

            I wonder why D*o*u*g or m*p*a*i*n did not c*o*t*t*o*n onto this idea?

            I hope I haven’t given them the same idea as we could have three serial pests in action rather than having to deal with just the one.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            miker, frantically lashing out in desperation is not the cure.

            Please seek professional help.

            When you get cured, and are able to obey the rules, come back and I will teach you some physics.

            Best of luck.

          • mikeR says:

            G* , As you have violated your own stipulations regarding abuse (as is obvious form your tirades above) I assume you will now depart the scene.

            In contrast , I didnt sign any agreement based on restricting my comments to match g*s (tweet length) attention span.

            Additionally I offered g* three consecutive attempts to answer some very basic questions which he did his best to avoid. Where I come from, its three strikes and you are out.

            This brings to mind, another relevant expression. when it comes to fools, I call em when I see em.

            On that topic G*, Let us all know when you finally get around to surprising everyone with your attempt to teach physics. it will be truly edifying.

            Have a nice day and I also wish you best of luck in your endeavours.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Glad to see you are considering getting help, miker.

            Here’s hoping you can beat the keyboard addiction.

          • mikeR says:

            G*,

            As you have 217 comments , at this stage compared to my pathetic 83 comments ( I am a real amateur in comparison) , I think we know who really has an addiction. Aren’t you glad you brought it up.

            I just have to add keyboard addiction to your diagnosis for Pyscho-g*e*r*a*ntology – see http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-272982 .

            Your prognosis is poor.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            That’s a perfect example, Nate. You start pounding on that keyboard, and your brain stops working.

            You can’t compare ALL of my comments to just your comments. That’s apples and oranges. I have other mental cases I must deal with other they you.

            And, number of comments is not as accurate as word count. Your comments are typically WAY longer than mine.

            Your keyboard obsession negatively affects your ability to process facts and logic.

            Please, find help.

          • J Halp-less says:

            Yes, you could also show the solution by eliminating the top green arrow. It can be understood either way. Of course, if you eliminate the top green arrow, they will just have another set of imagined problems to go on about (whilst ignoring the flaws in their own model), due to their insistence on ignoring the bigger picture (and also due to their complete failure to understand heat flow or even the concept of equilibrium). Oh well.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          svante…”We add a small part of the turnover, but all of the increase”.

          There’s no proof for that other than inferences from proxy data. We saw how proxy data can go awry in the mbb98 hockey stick study. In the latter half of the 20th century, tree ring temp data was showing cooling while actual temps were rising.

          Jaworowsky has shown the pitfalls of ice core proxies. When CO2 is frozen in ice, and the ice pressure increases with depth, the CO2 bubbles turn to solids called clathrates. When the ice cores are drilled out and come to surface pressure, the the ice core samples are contaminated with melted ice from the drilling, hence diluted.

          It’s ludicrous to claim a CO2 concentration of 270 ppmv in the pre Industrial era based on ice core proxies. The 270 ppmv figure was cherry picked by the IPCC from levels in local ice showing quite variable CO2 levels, some beyond 400 ppmv.

          No allowance was made for the 1C to 2C below average global temps due to the Little Ice Age at the time of the pre Industrial Era. It’s well known that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere get lower as colder oceans absorb more CO2.

          Circa 1940, a German scientist, Kreutz, with experience in chemistry, took over 25,000 samples of air showing CO2 levels as high as 400 ppmv.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon: Did Kreutz account for nearby industrial and vehicular sources?

          • Nate says:

            ‘Its well known that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere get lower as colder oceans absorb more CO2.’

            A qualitative statement.

            A drop of 7 ppm is indeed observed in LIA relative to MWP.

          • Svante says:

            Mauna Loa has measured CO2 since 1956, and there is a regular increase year to year.

            1) Accounting shows the increase is about half of what we burn.

            2) We measure increased acidification in the oceans, so it’s not coming from there.

            3) There is a marching decline in atmospheric oxygen, consistent with burning.

            4) Isotopic evidence shows it comes from fossil sources.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        nate…”The natural fraction, 270/400 is 67%, last I checked”.

        You mean the inferred 270 ppmv based on proxies from Antarctic ice. Jarowoski revealed the concentrations ranged wildly in the vicinity where the ice cores were sampled. He claimed that 270 ppmv could have been as high as 350 ppmv.

        The IPCC based their ACO2 levels on 390 ppmv. At that level, they admitted the total ACO2 levels were a ‘small fraction’ of the natural CO2 atmospheric content. That’s a reference to ALL ACO2 being emitted at the time.

        I hardly think ACO2 has increased atmospheric CO2 by 130 PPMV since the Industrial Era. Even if the 270 ppmv is correct, that level of CO2 should have caused catastrophic global warming over the centuries. It did not, so why should an extra 130 ppmv?

        “Your .04% is to small to matter meme has been debunked at least 100 times”.

        Not to my satisfaction on a verifiable scientific basis.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon RObertson wrote:
          “Even if the 270 ppmv is correct, that level of CO2 should have caused catastrophic global warming over the centuries.”

          Prove it.

          Prove this. Prove something. Prove *anything,* you nincompoop.

        • barry says:

          Jarowoski revealed

          Spin.

          Jarowoski’s opinion of pre-industrial CO2 concentrations are singular and firmly shown to be erroneous. He has no expertise in drilling for CO2 records.

          Which means skeptics will tout him as an expert who ‘reveals’ stuff.

          In climate skeptics circles, many take the words of Jaworowski about the unreliability of CO2 measurements in ice cores as truth and reject the possibility that ice cores reflect the ancient atmosphere.

          http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html

          There follows a detailed investigation…

        • Nate says:

          “I hardly think ACO2 has increased atmospheric CO2 by 130 PPMV since the Industrial Era. ”

          An opinion, not a fact.

        • Nate says:

          ” At that level, they (IPCC) admitted the total ACO2 levels were a small fraction of the natural CO2 atmospheric content.”

          BS. They did no such thing!

    • ren says:

      CO2 does not matter. Only the amount of water vapor and the wind direction in the tropics counts.
      http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=global2&timespan=24hrs&anim=html5

      • Svante says:

        The amount of water vapor depends on non-condensing GHGs.

        It’s unstable on its own, if it starts condensing temperatures will drop and you have a vicious circle.

        • gbaikie says:

          The amount of water vapor depends on the ocean surface temperature, the average ocean surface temperature is about 17 C and average tropical surface ocean is about 27 C.

          If water vapor condensing, the latent heat warms air temperature, and ocean surface temperature evaporate [cools] replacing the water vapor which has condensed.

          Water vapor depends of ocean temperature which mostly tropical ocean temperature of about 27 C.

          The tropical ocean is warm because it’s near equator which receives more sunlight than regions outside the tropics.

          The tropics has always remained warm and significant variation of temperature of the rest of the world is related to amount warmed tropical water which flows like vast rivers pole ward.

          • Bindidon says:

            This is a well superficial allegation.

            If you were right about such harsh domination of global climatic processes by the Tropics context, there would be far fewer difference between the northern and southern hemispheres, and even between the north and south poles.

            As you should know, this is not at all the case, neither on surface nor within the lower troposphere.

            A simple look at the trends, from 1979 till today for all regions and for both layers, shows how wrong you are.

          • gbaikie says:

            ” Bindidon says:
            December 2, 2017 at 11:23 AM

            This is a well superficial allegation.”

            It is very superficial.
            What actually controls global temperature is the average volume temperature of the ocean which is about 3-4 C.

            Or you can never have global air temperature higher than 20 C with average temperature of entire ocean below 5 C.
            And it should take about 1000 years [or more] for the volume
            of the ocean rise from 3 to 4 C to 4 to 5 C.
            So alarmism aka earth is going to become like Venus in few decades is completely impossible.

            Which not to say that your entire ocean has never been a couple of degrees warmer- it was couple degree warmer in last glaciation period, and large portion of last 1/2 billion years the entire ocean has 10 degrees warmer than our ocean.
            Our present ocean is cold aka, we in a ice box climate. And Earth has had periods when was hothouse climate.
            So we are not in a hothouse climate- average ocean volume is not warmer than 15 C.
            So when earth ocean is 3-4 C, it can’t warm quickly from sunlight. Or the only way earth ocean could warm to average temperature of 10 C or higher, within a thousand years would something like MASSIVE volcanic activity. And such massive volcanic activity [or any other way to warm the ocean by so much so quickly] would itself be the danger rather than the warmer ocean and warmer global air temperature.

            “If you were right about such harsh domination of global climatic processes by the Tropics context, there would be far fewer difference between the northern and southern hemispheres, and even between the north and south poles.”

            This has occurred and would occur in a hothouse climate, and icebox climate it doesn’t occur.

            -As you should know, this is not at all the case, neither on surface nor within the lower troposphere.

            A simple look at the trends, from 1979 till today for all regions and for both layers, shows how wrong you are.–

            At no point in anytime in the history of Earth, has the global air temperature, been warmer than ocean surface temperature.

          • gbaikie says:

            “glaciation period”, meant last interglacial period, more specifically:
            “The Eemian (also called the last interglacial, Sangamonian, Ipswichian, Mikulin, Kaydaky, Valdivia or Riss-Wrm) was the interglacial period which began about 130,000 years ago and ended about 115,000 years ago.”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian

          • Bindidon says:

            gbaikie on December 2, 2017 at 5:29 PM

            At no point in anytime in the history of Earth, has the global air temperature, been warmer than ocean surface temperature.

            Why do you pretend that? On the base of what data?

            Here below you see a chart comparing global surface temperatures for land and ocean. The chart is based on NOAA data (discredited as ‘corrupt’ behind fake names by lousy cowards), but with some more work I could present that of the Japanese Met Agency, whose data sets are based on different measurements and computations.

            http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1512261135389.jpg

            The same holds for the lower troposphere: TLT above land is warmer than above the oceans.

          • gbaikie says:

            “Here below you see a chart comparing global surface temperatures for land and ocean…..”

            It’s not a graph of temperatures.
            Average Earth oceans are about 17 C
            Average Earth lands are about 10 C

            It’s never been close.

          • gbaikie says:

            While looking at Berkeley Earth:
            “The scale of cigarettes per day is used to make the levels easiest to understand. They were calculated by comparing the known health risk of cigarettes to the known health risks of PM2.5 as estimated by the World Health Organization. Throughout much of Europe the pollution levels give a health effect equivalent to that of every man, woman and child smoking 5 cigarettes per day; in the worst regions of Europe, the level exceeds 7 cigarettes per day equivalent. ”

            “The second plot shows yesterdays air pollution around the world. The worst pollution is in India and China, where levels reach over a pack of cigarettes per day (PM2.5 above 400 micrograms per cubic meter). It was not a good day for much of the world, except for the US, Japan, and some small scattered regions.”

            Like Ireland, Scotland, and small part of Spain.
            But good news is that Chinese and India children just have to stop smoking cigarettes and they will be fine.

          • gbaikie says:

            Anyhow, land temperatures:
            “… To obtain the best estimate for the Earth surface land temperature, Berkeley Average performs a process analogous to iterative least-squares minimization. The initial variables are 1) an offset variable (baseline temperature) for each of the 179,928 temperature time series, referenced to values that take into account latitude and altitude, and 2) the set of T avg numbers (one variable for
            each month) that will represent our land global average; the values of these variables necessary to minimize the least-squares differences are calculated exactly using matrix inversion…..”
            https://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-101.pdf

            see graph of actual temperature, called “Land surface temperature 1 year average”
            Going from 1750 to +2000 AD. It does indicate land 1 year temperature did go above 10 C after 2000 AD.

          • gbaikie says:

            The answer to question why is Earth’s average temperature is
            about 15 C, is the ocean is about 17 C.
            And reason the oceans average temperature is 17 C is tropical ocean which is 80% of tropical region and tropical region is 40% of the world is about 27 C.
            And reason land temperatures are as warm as 10 C is the Africa is warmest continent in the world.

            The largest countries are about -4 C, and there is fairly big continent called Antarctica is about -50 C.

            The tropics was know to be warm for centuries, and Antarctic
            was unknown until recently- but the vast tropical ocean dwarfs
            all land areas. So one could safely say more than century ago, that Earth average temperature was about 15 C.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            binny…”At no point in anytime in the history of Earth, has the global air temperature, been warmer than ocean surface temperature.

            Why do you pretend that? On the base of what data?”

            **********

            On the basis gbaikie has already stated, that the oceans cover 70% of the planet’s surface.

            A contributor to this blog, Stephen Wilde, has offered a similar theory:

            http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1487

          • gbaikie says:

            –On the basis gbaikie has already stated, that the oceans cover 70% of the planets surface.

            A contributor to this blog, Stephen Wilde, has offered a similar theory:

            http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1487

            I have had discussions with Stephen Wilde.
            But before discuss what Stephen Wilde says in above link.
            My theory is ocean warm more than land area.
            And certainly having %70 of surface area of earth being ocean area, does not make Earth have lower average temperature.
            And certainly having 70% of surface being either land or ocean would make whichever had 70% of area would make either a dominate factor on global temperature.

            I would say the capability of humans ignoring the ocean amount to achievement in dullness. But I say anyone adequately educated in general topic of “global climate” is quite aware of the important aspect of the tropics and tropical ocean in regards to global average temperature.

            As far as saying anything new, I would say if add a tropical ocean to Mars it would increase the average temperature of
            Mars. Probably reason it’s “new” is most people think you couldn’t add tropical ocean to Mars.
            I happen to think it would be important to add a tropical ocean to Mars- because it add an environment which has pressure. Another aspect is people imagine there is not very much water on Mars.
            It’s possible there is not not water on Mars [though it seems quite unlikely] but were no water on Mars, one could still add water to Mars. Or our solar system has many Earth oceans of water. But enough about Mars.

            Basically, recently arrived at new way to explain it- though I already mentioned elements of it a few times.
            So ideal thermally conductive blackbody at 1 AU [Earth distance from sun] is thought to have uniform temperature of about 5 C.
            And Earth average temperature is about 5 C.
            Earth’s average of 15 C is due to two thermal gradients- ocean temperature and sky temperatures.
            That my theory. I like it, cause it’s very simple.

            As to what Wilde says. he says:
            “Previously the time scale of the oceanic changes has been considered to be too long to be relevant to decadal climate change.”
            I don’t know if that is true. I would guess James Hansen knew the warming effect of El Nino. I assume he knew this just as much as he knew how he could to make members of congress sweat excessively. Or I would guess his stagecraft included El Nino, which he knew congress members would be clueless about. As general note, Congress is clueless about many things.
            Next:
            “This article makes use of recent findings about the relatively short decadal or multi decadal (20 to 30 years) oceanic oscillations that, the writer contends, are short enough to bring the time scales involved in oceanic changes into line with the solar cycles of 11 years or so. It seems to the writer that spreading global oceanic cycles of up to 30 years in length across 3 solar cycles results in a close enough match to fit temperature observations over the past few hundred years and especially since 1961.

            Sometimes the solar cycles operate in conjunction with the oceanic oscillations but at other times they work against each other.”

            I would say solar cycles are or seem connected to changing weather patterns, though wouldn’t rule out changing nature of solar output in terms of solar spectrum changes as related to solar cycles in regards warming the ocean.

            Let’s move on to something I disagree about.
            “Its quite clear that overall planetary temperatures are a fine balance between solar energy coming in and that same energy being radiated away into space.”
            Well I disagree about that because “any type planet” would about 5 C at 1 AU from the sun- so that quite insensitive.
            Though any planet which rotated- and had some amount of an atmosphere.
            And goes on density of atmosphere. And I think Venus would be colder than Earth at 1 AU. And earth much cooler than Venus at Venus distance.
            More interesting:
            “A planets atmosphere is entirely different from a greenhouse. The latter accumulates heat inside by physically preventing escape of hot air thereby concentrating it in a confined space. The atmosphere is nothing like that because there is nothing to prevent hot air rising via convection from the ground to a substantial height.”

            I think Earth atmosphere acts like a very large greenhouse with vacuum for a ceiling. And also think the oceans act like a greenhouse.
            Of course actual greenhouse or parked car are preventing heated air from warming the entire atmosphere.
            Or actual greenhouse or parked car, is like a solar pond which can reach a water temperature of 80 C- because saline gradient prevents heated and warmer saltier water from rising [the salty water though hot is dense than cooler less salty water above.
            So atmosphere is a huge parked car or huge actual greenhouse, as is the ocean a vast and deep solar pond.
            Solar pond being a saltwater greenhouse or parked car.
            I will stop here, too keep it shorter.

          • gbaikie says:

            An Ideal thermally conductive blackbody at Earth’s distance from the Sun would have uniform temperature of 5 C.

            No planet would have uniform temperature. Earth’s oceans do have fairly uniform temperature. So a part of earth has has regions which do have a fairly uniform temperature.
            The oceans of Earth are very deep, and most of this depth has a fairly uniform and cool temperature of less than 3 C.
            If average the temperature of all the oceans including their vast depths it’s average temperature is around 3 to 4 C.
            The surface of the ocean [if you exclude polar regions] is warmer than the depth. And saltwater in deepest parts of ocean can be below 0 C, as can the surface water in polar region be below 0 C.
            A trivia question could be where is region of the ocean will the most uniform temperature?
            Perhaps a location of ocean waters with surface temperature of around 2 to 3 C. Or perhaps part of the ocean which the deepest and you don’t count the top few hundred meter at the top of the ocean.
            Without fiddling with it and keeping it simple, you say the arctic ocean- it’s fairly deep, it’s cold and it stays cold- if don’t count the air above the frozen ice, which can very cold during the winter- though question is about ocean water.
            Anyhow if don’t count the heat gradient at surface water of the tropics and surface water of temperate zones the ocean is colder than 5 C and has total variation of about 5 C or something like 2 C +/- 3 C. Or quite uniform.
            Or if you want uniformity the ocean is it. In 1000 meters of depth one less 3 C difference in temperature without seasonal variation exceeding the 3 C difference.
            Whereas land area depth can have very constant temperature but a larger heat gradient per 1000 meters. Average is 25 C per 1000 meters of depth.

            So this uniformity of ocean temperature is caused by gravity- warmer water rises because it’s less dense.
            Warmer rock doesn’t rise unless it’s a liquid.

            So Earth at distance from Sun, should around 5 C and Earth is around 5 C, and it’s warmer than 5 C where warmest part of atmosphere intersects the warmest part of the ocean.
            The warmest ocean surface and air surface averages about 27 C and it’s in the tropics which receives more than 1/2 of sunlight which reaches Earth.

            The ideal thermally conduction blackbody doesn’t indicate that there is restriction on how warm or cold planet can be.
            Or lunar surface can reach around 120 C [400 K] and permanent lunar polar craters can be 30 K.
            The Moon is not vaguely like a ideal thermally conduction blackbody, though the Moon is like a blackbody.
            Or a blackbody in sunlight at earth distance will be about 120 C. But if blackbody is insulated from energy of sunlight at whatever distance from the sun it could be 3 K. And Moon in the dark craters is getting heat from somewhere [conducted heat from sunlight and/or interior of the small weak lunar core. Or it’s not insulated enough to be 3 K- miles of thickness of rock isn’t adequate enough insulation so as to reach about 3 K.

            Well I was trying to brief, but it seems to have been quite failure.
            Paul D. Spudis:
            “The sunlit areas near the Moons poles are thermally benign, with an estimated surface temperature of about -50 C, plus or minus 10. Due to the lack of a moderating atmosphere, the remaining surface of the Moon experiences large temperature swings, ranging from -150 C during the coldest parts of the lunar night to over 100 C during the hottest portion of the lunar day. Astronauts who have walked on the Moon noticed significantly warmer temperatures as the Sun rose higher in the sky over the course of their stays on the Moon.”
            http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/take-step-another-world-180967334/#iBgH8Or2fRKMZg8f.99

            I believe all crew landed on Moon near dawn and stayed on Moon for at most a few earth days. The lighting conditions of near morning made safer to land, as Paul indicates, I don’t they stayed until is was lunar noon time. Anyhow, Paul go to say:
            “Unlike the equatorial and mid-latitude regions, the terrain near the poles has areas that experience constant darkness, alongside some areas that are nearly always illuminated by the Sun. This simple proximity has dramatic consequences. The dark areas are extremely cold, and serve to collect volatile substances that hit the Moon over time. As shown by a variety of remote sensing techniques, these cold traps have accumulated significant quantities of water ice and other matter. Water is one of the most useful things found in space.”

            Anyhow no one have yet to land anything in lunar polar regions- though we deliberately crashed things in lunar polar regions [and measured the explosive results]
            Anyhow I had meant to get to topic of greenhouses.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        ren…”CO2 does not matter. Only the amount of water vapor and the wind direction in the tropics counts”.

        The UAH record since 1979 proves that. UAH has revealed virtually no warming in the Tropics since 1979 and they have stated that several times.

    • Des says:

      Hello again Mr Radio Shack Technician,

      The ‘wild swings’ in recent months have been noticed only in the satellite record. Funny that.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        des…”The wild swings in recent months have been noticed only in the satellite record. Funny that”.

        Yes…the satellites cover 95% of the planet as opposed to 30% by surface stations. That was before NOAA slashed them by 75%.

        The sats also have advanced telemetry that measures microwave radiation from oxygen molecules. The radiation correlates with the O2 temperature. So, sat telemetry is scanning bazillions of O2 data points per instantaneous position of the scanner as it moves.

        On the surface, temperatures are taken twice a day and averaged.

        The sat data is so much more comprehensive that UAH can offer an accurate map of the planet which features visual temperature anomalies globally. That is not possible with the scant surface data.

        Don’t forget the surface temperature record is now fudged using climate models. Does the word ‘smoothing’ mean anything to you? Easy to do statistically in a model. The fudged warming on the surface record looks much nicer without all those oscillations.

        Why confuse the poor public when you are trying to condition them to the fiction of AGW. And use lots of red colours to accent how warm it is getting. A few degrees C becomes red hot.

    • David Appell says:

      Gordon Robertson says:
      “The question that should be asked is what is really going on. These wild swings in temps over the short range have nothing whatsoever to do with anthropogenic warming or climate change.”

      Natural variations. Noise. There have been 15 times in the where UAH LT’s variation was (in absolute value) >= this month’s value of -0.27 C.

      There’s nothing noteworthy about the 16th time.

    • David Appell says:

      Gordon Robertson wrote:
      “The IPCC confirmed that ACO2 is a small percentage of the 0.04%, which is 96% from natural sources.”

      False and false.

      aCO2 is now 31% of the atmosphere’s CO2; CO2 has increased 45% since the pre-industrial era.

      And nature absorbs more CO2 than it emits, Gordon. It’s aCO2 that is resposible for the modern increase.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”aCO2 is now 31% of the atmospheres CO2; CO2 has increased 45% since the pre-industrial era.”

        You’ll need to supply scientific proof and proxy studies are social science not real science.

        Even if you’re right, which you’re not, 31% of nothing is still nothing.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson wrote:
          “Youll need to supply scientific proof and proxy studies are social science not real science.”

          See the IPCC 5AR that you like to cite.

          “Even if youre right, which youre not, 31% of nothing is still nothing.”

          Nothing? Would you like to instantly be 31% richer, Gordon?

  13. Bindidon says:

    One more time I express my hope that lousy people cowardly pretending behind their fake name NOAA being corrupt will be prosecuted by Justice.

    • Svante says:

      Or prosecute NOAA. Courts require evidence though, so defamation is easier.

      • Bindidon says:

        Sorry to insist, Svante: I’m not speaking here about simplicity but about cowardice. Trolls like Robertson do not slander because it is easier than to convince a court.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      Take it easy, gents. I continue to notice NOAA cleaning up their act. We may be able to soon start believing their data.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”One more time I express my hope that lousy people cowardly pretending behind their fake name NOAA being corrupt will be prosecuted by Justice”.

      Your denial is incredible. NOAA is currently under investigation by a US government house committee. One of the charges is falsifying the temperature record.

      NOAA has refused to cooperate. Can you offer a good reason why a scientific organization, funded by the US government, who are there masters, should refuse to cooperate with a government investigation?

      I can, they are guilty as charged.

      • Svante says:

        FactCheck.org says “No Data Manipulation at NOAA”.

        http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-data-manipulation-at-noaa/

      • barry says:

        One of the charges is falsifying the temperature record.

        Their key source for that charge (Bates) rejects it.

        It’s pretty clear that the charge is without substance. The long-term temp record would be warmer if they did no adjustments. The early SST revision was the largest and it reduced long-term warming. As Hausfather said, if they were cooking the books to increase warming, they have already shot themselves in the foot with that revision.

        But its nonsense. All the global temp record groups are constantly trying to improve the methods, including UAH. It’s the politicians who are… playing politics.

  14. professorP says:

    Give up Gordon.
    A. You have lost.
    B. You are repeating yourself.
    C. You are talking rubbish re ACO2

    • David Appell says:

      Gordon is a serial liar. He simply does not care about facts or science.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        davie tried to claim the knows physics. Every time he is shown he is wrong, he just calls out “liar”!

        It’s fun to watch.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          g*r…”davie tried to claim the knows physics. Every time he is shown he is wrong, he just calls out liar!

          Its fun to watch”.

          It’s always fun watching alarmists trying to wriggle out of a losing argument. DA calls me a liar and norman patronizes me, claiming my understanding of science is nil.

          • David Appell says:

            It’s been well-documented here, Gordon, both by me, Norman, Des, barry and others, that you are indeed a liar.

            It’s evident from this post alone, not to mention all the other ones over the past.

            And you continue to lie.

            You appear to have no qualms whatsoever about lying, repeatedly, or any shame.

            I’ve liked all the Canadians I’ve ever met — used to work closely with them on a cross-border 800 service for MCI/Bell Canada.

            But you’re the worst I’ve ever met.

          • Fox says:

            And your credentials include customer service representative for Bell Canada only?

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            I am not claiming you understanding of science is “nil” it is far worse. You make up your own version of reality and think it is factual when you are shown hundreds of times it is flawed thinking and goes against established science. The only “science” you know and understand is your own make believe version of it.

            I also have told you numerous times I am not an “alarmist” nor do I wiggle out of losing arguments. It is impossible to win any argument with a person who makes up their own reality. In your own mind you are always right. It does not make it so in reality but in your delusional mental state you are always right.

            g*e*r*a*n likewise cannot lose an argument since he is unable to argue anything. He just ignores questions asked of him.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            The con-man claims: “g*e*r*a*n likewise cannot lose an argument since he is unable to argue anything. He just ignores questions asked of him.”

            Norm, I cannot lose arguments because I am always correct!

            And, I only ignore questions from con-men and phonies.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            YOU: “Norm, I cannot lose arguments because I am always correct!”

            Yes with your fantasy physics that you Joe Postma made up for you, you would be correct. In your delusional belief system you will always be correct since you made up the rules.

            In real world empirical and experimental physics you are completely wrong.

            Do an experiment to prove your opinion that a non-heated plate will reach the same temperature of a heated plate. You won’t be able to do this since it is based upon made up physics.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Con-man, have you noticed that the only way you get anything right is to quote me directly?

            Well, whatever you must do, I guess.

          • Svante says:

            Norman, g*e*r*a*n,

            I have a vacuum pump, can you propose a test with this:

            https://tinyurl.com/y9u222fb

            Two sheets of metal, a lamp on top, ice underneath?
            Rip apart and measure?

            Do we even need vacuum, energy loss rate depends on temperature difference for conduction and convection too.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      prof…”Give up Gordon.
      A. You have lost.
      B. You are repeating yourself.
      C. You are talking rubbish re ACO2″

      I’ll consider your whine when you supply convincing proof.

  15. Darwin Wyatt says:

    Um doesn’t this precipitous drop mean anthropogenic CO2 is below natural variability?

  16. Des says:

    This is still above the trend value of +0.28 despite La Nina conditions. We should be BELOW the trend. (And we will be as the La Nina develops further).

    Second warmest November on record.

    1. 2016 +0.46
    2. 2017 +0.36
    3. 2015 +0.34
    4. 2009 +0.28
    5. 1990 +0.25
    6. 2014 +0.24
    7. 2002 +0.21
    8. 2005 +0.20

    It seems from denier comments above that returning to above average conditions from ridiculously high anomalies somehow negates warming.

    • Richard M says:

      It was El Nino conditions that drove up the anomaly. There’s a 3-4 month lag so the La Nina conditions are not yet affecting the satellite monthly value. You’ll have to wait until around February to see it.

      We also start to feel the effect of the AMO over the NH when the Arctic starts venting more heat. This goes from November into April.

      It is very easy to believe whatever you want by ignoring natural cycles.

      • Des says:

        Thanks for confirming that this month’s anomaly is the response to NEUTRAL conditions, so should be considered representative of the long-term trend.

        Further thanks for confirming that anomalies that we will see in coming months should NOT be considered representative of the long-term trend.

        Can I assume from your comment that *YOU* won’t be ignoring the downward phase of these natural “cycles” as you express your belief in coming months? Or will your “logic” perform the old denier switcheroo?

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          des, I easily understood the points made by RIchard M. Maybe if you asked some responsible questions, he would be willing to help you.

        • Richard M says:

          We are currently at the top of the AMO cycle as far as it affects the GAST. I don’t expect much more of a drop in the UAH anomaly going forward until the La Nina kicks in. Then, it should drop. And yes, that drop would be just as irrelevant as the bump up that happened across the recent El Nino.

          The AMO will likely stay positive for another 5-8 years so it will be quite awhile before its effect goes away completely. However, we are at the tail end of the positive phase which means we might have a year or two that dips down into negative values. This could lead to an increase in sea ice.

          The biggest effect of the AMO is the reduction in Arctic sea ice and the related release of heat from the ocean. If we were to see a quick recovery in sea ice then I would expect the GAST to respond quickly.

    • Bindidon says:

      Des on December 2, 2017 at 1:46 AM

      This is still above the trend value of +0.28 despite La Nina conditions. We should be BELOW the trend.

      Des, I apologise for contradiction!

      But as explained above, the lower troposphere needs a lot of time to react to ENSO.

      Here is a chart with an ENSO plot (MEI in this case) shifted by four months:

      http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1512252478722.jpg

      Moreover, you see in the graph that UAH’s TLT response to La Nina events is a lot weaker than that to the Ninos. With the exception, of course, of those Ninos having occured at the same time as powerful volcanic events like St Helens + El Chichon, or Pinatubo.

  17. ren says:

    CO2 does not matter. Only the amount of water vapor and the wind direction in the tropics counts.
    http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=global2&timespan=24hrs&anim=html5

    • Des says:

      Whatever you say buddy. You’ve certainly said it enough times over and over to convince yourself.

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        Independently of ren I have demonstrated, for average global temperature, that CO2 does not matter and that water vapor does. Click my name.

        Water vapor trend is increasing 1.5% per decade and has been since 1960. The warming from added water vapor is welcome and countering the cooling that would otherwise be occuring but the added water vapor raises the risk of catastrophy from precipitation related flooding.

        • Des says:

          Then you will have no problem publishing a peer-reviewed paper on your “results”.

          • Bindidon says:

            Exactly, Des.

            And please let me add that the meaning of a Pen’s emeritus like Craig Bohren counts in my mind a lot more than Mr Pangburn’s “results”:

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-274203

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            The peer reviewers are ‘in the tank’ and reject anything that disagrees with their preconceived notions.
            Ask Dr Roy . . .

          • gbaikie says:

            Everyone knows it, other than useful idiots.
            You need something new or news worthy to publish.
            Though fake news, works.

          • David Appell says:

            Dan Pangburn says:
            “The peer reviewers are in the tank and reject anything that disagrees with their preconceived notions.”

            That’s just how you protect your little ego, Dan, how you coccoon yourself.

            Have you ever TRIED to get a paper published with your astonishing, amazing, tremendous world-altering claim?

            Because no one is paying attention to your blog or blog comments.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            des…”Then you will have no problem publishing a peer-reviewed paper on your results.”

            The typical alarmist whine, even though peer review neither confirms nor denies the truth. Nothing more than an opinion.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            binny…”And please let me add that the meaning of a Pens emeritus like Craig Bohren counts in my mind a lot more than Mr Pangburns results:”

            You failed to mention that Craig Bohren is an AGW skeptic. He claimed in one of his books that the heat trapping/blanket effect of GHGs is at worst, plain silly, and he has dismissed the back-radiation theory as simply a model.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson wrote:
            “The typical alarmist whine, even though peer review neither confirms nor denies the truth.”

            No one claims it does. But it does weed-out crap (like Pangburns’), and ensures the author(s) know what work came before then. Valuable.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Dav – You ask “why havent you submitted your work to a real science journal?”. That was answered upthread.

            Your comments reveal that your mind is made up (apparently you think predicting temperature increase twice actual is good enough).

            Also, apparently, you are too stubborn to discover that the time-integral of SSN anomalies is an excellent proxy for the suns contribution to earth temperature change and that the rise in water vapor is contributing part. Nearly all of the rest is due to ocean surface temperature cycles for which no one has nailed down a cause.

            And, that the combination of the above explains 98+% of reported measured average global temperature without needing any contribution from CO2 whatsoever.

          • gbaikie says:

            “..but the added water vapor raises the risk of catastrophy from precipitation related flooding.”

            It seems there would be problem providing any evidence of increasing water vapor increasing the risk catastrophy from precipitation related flooding

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            gba – regarding “…problem providing any evidence…” Compelling evidence appears to me to be easy: It obviously rains more where it is humid (tropical rain forest) and less where it is arid (desert). Also, increased humidity means more is going up and what goes up must come down. Precipitation related flooding is fairly common. Certainly more precipitation increases risk of flooding and flooding can be a catastrophy.

          • gbaikie says:

            “Dan Pangburn says:
            December 4, 2017 at 4:13 PM

            gba regarding problem providing any evidence Compelling evidence appears to me to be easy: It obviously rains more where it is humid (tropical rain forest) and less where it is arid (desert). Also, increased humidity means more is going up and what goes up must come down. Precipitation related flooding is fairly common. Certainly more precipitation increases risk of flooding and flooding can be a catastrophy.”

            “British Columbias coastal temperate rainforest is home to some of the largest trees in the world. The animals in this ecosystem are adapted to the moist climate. The trees of the coastal temperate rainforest use the 250 cm of annual rainfall and can live to be hundreds of years old (old growth trees), and grow to be approximately 90 metres tall. BCs coastal rainforest is dominated by coniferous trees, which makes it different from other temperate rainforests.”
            https://www.scienceworld.ca/resources/units/coastal-temperate-rainforests

            Lot’s of rain and no catastrophic flooding. I had move to the Desert of LA to find catastrophic flooding.

          • gbaikie says:

            “And, that the combination of the above explains 98+% of reported measured average global temperature without needing any contribution from CO2 whatsoever.”

            About 2%.
            Hmm.
            Well I don’t think greenhouse gas add 33 K.
            I tend to think the entire atmosphere adds about 15 C
            Though we could choose to use K rather than C.
            so 15 C = 288 K so about 5 K.
            I think a lot people could agree that 400 ppm of CO2
            adds less than 5 C.
            If don’t include all the silliness of CO2 being part of the forcing circus act.

            Oh, But you said of reported warming- so say, .08 C?
            and .0784 C not having to do with CO2 rise of say, 300 to 400 ppm.
            Less than .016 C.
            Whereas IPCC said something like more than half of .4 C rise from 1950 was from CO2. Or + .2 C.
            And IPCC, of course, is including “the forcing circus act”. And if they didn’t include it- about .1 C

            Anyhow. Roughly, I guess I agree.
            But if circle back to the circus act of CO2 causing increase in water vapor. How much is due to increased water vapor?

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            gba, “How much is due to increased water vapor?”

            My conclusion is essentially ALL of it. Non condensing ghg have no significant effect but there might be something as yet not identified.

        • David Appell says:

          So CO2 doesn’t absorb IR? Did you tell John Tyndall?

          Dan, you should publish this finding somewhere — any science journal — ANY — would love to publish such a paper, assuming it passes peer review. You’d be world famous, from here to eternity.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Dav, If you weren’t too stubborn to look at my stuff you would know better about CO2 and climate.

            The people who believe in AGW caused by CO2 are the people who are denying science. The science of thermalization, the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of molecule energy, and, quantum mechanics explain why CO2, in spite of being IR active (AKA a ghg) does not now, has never had and will never have a significant effect on climate.

          • David Appell says:

            Dan, I don’t look at your stuff because you’re just another crank on the Internet who’s afraid to have his work reviewed by experts.

            Get your claims published somewhere real, in a real journal, peer reviewed by real scientists, and I’ll be the first to start writing about it.

            And explain why CO2 *doesn’t* heat the planet, when the evidence is so stark: https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif

            Until then you’re just another denier.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Dav, So you lack the confidence in your own skill to review my stuff. Sad.

            If you had looked at my stuff, you would have seen that graph you linked to (Its Fig 3) along with the explaination of how it demonstrates CO2 has no significant effect on climate.

          • David Appell says:

            Dan, I have plenty of knowledge to evaluate your work. It looks like the work of a crank.

            But you don’t have the confidence to submit your work to review by the experts. What a shame.

          • David Appell says:

            Dan Pangburn says:
            “If you had looked at my stuff, you would have seen that graph you linked to (Its Fig 3)….”

            I don’t waste time on crap like that.

            THere is an infinite amount of it on the Internet.

            Get your claims published somewhere decent and I’ll be the first to read it carefully.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”I dont look at your stuff because youre just another crank on the Internet…”

            Then you quote Gavin Schmidt. Schmidt had to be corrected on the meaning of positive feedback by engineer Jeffrey Glassman, then he refused an opportunity to debate Richard Lindzen.

            You really are an idiot Appell. An appeal-to-authority idiot.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”THere is an infinite amount of it on the Internet”.

            Unfortunately, you lack the ability in science to interpret it correctly.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon, I’m careful to cite all the science I present here.

            You, on the other hand, make wild crazy claims while providing no evidence for anything.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “Then you quote Gavin Schmidt. Schmidt had to be corrected on the meaning of positive feedback by engineer Jeffrey Glassman, then he refused an opportunity to debate Richard Lindzen.”

            I highly doubt it. Prove it.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Dav, Interesting, you say “I dont look at your stuff” and then you say “It looks like the work of a crank.” That contradiction does not do much for your credibility.

            I expect you believe that you “have plenty of knowledge to evaluate” my work. But I see no indication that you have sufficient understanding of transient heat transfer, or thermalization, or the increase in water vapor which is twice what it is calculated to be as a result of temperature rise of the liquid water, or that climate science has been misguided regarding the meaning of feedback since the 1984 paper was published that Hansen was a party to.

            If you understood the meaning of effective thermal capacitance you might be aware that the reported yearly up and down oscillations of average global temperature and (displayed on your website) ocean heat content, are absolutely impossible and reality for the planet is better represented with some smoothing.

          • David Appell says:

            Dan, I’ve seen your equation. It is ugly and clearly a pile of concocted horsesh!t

            Curve fitting is not science.

          • David Appell says:

            Dan, why haven’t you submitted your work to a real science journal?

            Begging for attention on denialist science blogs will get you noticed by precisely no one that matters in any way at all.

  18. ren says:

    The strength of the polar vortex will surprise people in the eastern US.
    http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00950/cg5dd8l7c5p3.png

  19. ren says:

    I am sorry, volcanic activity is also important.
    https://magma.vsi.esdm.go.id/live/seismogram/

  20. argus says:

    A charted temperature increase corresponds with man’s population boom and rise into Industrialism. It’s reasonable to suspect a link to man. But so what. I use evidence similarly to suspect a God. I don’t boast or beat people over the head about it. Obviously, a clean Earth is nearly everybody’s goal and so is expanding economic opportunity. This issue doesn’t have to break us, but it should push us into diligent work so we avoid encouraging calamitous events.

    • Bindidon says:

      I fully agree.

    • gbaikie says:

      The cheapest thing we ever did to avoid calamitous events, was explore space.
      I suggest we continue to explore space.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      argus…”But so what. I use evidence similarly to suspect a God”.

      You’re in good company. Isaac Newton wrote several volumes on the Bible and was devoutly religious.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:

        “Isaac Newton wrote several volumes on the Bible and was devoutly religious.”

        Anyone can make a mistake. Newton, although named Exchequer, also lost almost all his money on a South Pacific market bubble.

        What does that have to do with his physics and the vast amount of evidence that supports them?

  21. Laura says:

    A slowdown in the rising of global temperature (whatever that means and no matter how slight or short-lived) should be cause for celebration among the alarmists since they are, after all, the ones speaking about the immense danger of rising temperatures.

    And, yet, the thread shows the alarmists are unequivocally upset, even angry, by the news.

    • Bindidon says:

      What a stubborn comment, a perfect puzzle piece in the long, long sequence of your nonsensical elucubrations.

      The Read Thread in all that: you never write anything substantial, never express an own meaning wrt what is discussed here, never refer to sources one could learn from.

      All you manage to do is to discredit other people.

    • Des says:

      Please reference a comment that illustrates anger at the November anomaly, and not just anger at nonsense comments like yours.

    • Laura says:

      … and the self-identifying alarmists continue to struggle with their own contradictory and paradoxical feelings on the subject.

      The fact is, as we all know quite well, that alarmists are desperate for Armageddon and only insinuations of such far-flung possibility satisfy them.

      There has been a point of no return, indeed, for these anti-human lunatics.

      • David Appell says:

        Anti-human? Those who understand and admit the science of today’s rapid global warming are concerned about its impact on our society, and on future generations.

        I don’t see that you’re interested in anything except ideology and insulting your betters.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          davie, no wonder you prefer the bottom of the pile.

          That way, no one can “insult their betters”, since there is no one below you.

          Enjoy your spot at the bottom of the heap.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”Those who understand and admit the science of todays rapid global warming are concerned about its impact on our society, and on future generations”.

          Then you should do as Laura claims and rejoice at the proof of no global warming. It’s obvious that you are hoping for catastrophic warming the way you avoid signs to the contrary.

      • Des says:

        I guess you were unable to find such a quote.

    • barry says:

      the thread shows the alarmists are unequivocally upset, even angry, by the news

      No one is upset or angry about this month’s anomaly. A drop for November was predicted by all stripes. What nonsense you spout.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Laura…”A slowdown in the rising of global temperature (whatever that means and no matter how slight or short-lived) should be cause for celebration …”

      Actually, it has been cooling since February 2016. It’s just taking its time.

      • Des says:

        So 18 months after the coming La Nina is over, will you still be saying “it has been warming since (… the peak of the La Nina …)”? Or will you again toggle your method of analysis of warming/cooling trends?

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        “Actually, it has been cooling since February 2016.”

        Actually it’s been cooling since June 2015, according to a linear model that doesn’t deserve to be used here. But that conclusion is in no way statistically significant, which is par for Gordon’s claims.

    • Laura says:

      … and the alarmists continue to identifying themselves as such.

      Apparently, so they claim, it is not their own doing.

      You see, it is everyone else’s fault that they self-identify as alarmists.

      The rub, of course, is that they know who they are and why.

      Thread after thread after thread of angry, machine-like retorts and, yet, they claim to be in bliss.

      Can they be so unaware of their real state of mind?

      Of course not.

      Come on, give it a go.

      As an alarmist, can you really not acknowledge (to yourself, no witnesses) that you would very much prefer, say, ten times more hurricanes, not one season, but year after year?

      Why not just admit once and for all that it is unfortunate (for alarmists) that the climate these last three decades has been, you know, not much to write home about?

      PS: You are an alarmist if after reading the last question you cannot help but reach for your list of climate porn.

  22. TheFinalNail says:

    Laura

    “A slowdown in the rising of global temperature (whatever that means and no matter how slight or short-lived) should be cause for celebration among the alarmists…”

    This doesn’t represent a slowdown in global warming, alas. In fact, the November 2017 value fractionally ‘increases’ UAH’s long term warming rate (since Dec 1978). The November value is much lower than October’s, but it is still very high historically.

    TFN

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      So, in your highly scientific analysis, November “proves” the planet is about to explode.

      Do you have a date for this “end of the Earth”?

      (Hilarious.)

      • Des says:

        Do you EVER add a well thought out response to a comment that doesn’t involve straw man arguments and mockery? He was basically saying this month’s anomaly was still above the trend value. If you want to challenge that, what is stopping you from doing so in a dignified manner in a way that properly addresses the comment?

        Of course, you will now attack my comment in the same infantile manner.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          des, my “well thought out” responses only draw the infantile responses from Warmists.

          That’s what make “climate comedy” fun.

          Do you agree with the pseudoscience that the Earth is warming the Sun?

          Hilarious.

          • Des says:

            As predicted, you avoid the subject matter and yet again post the musings of a madman.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            des, you got something right!

            davie believes that the Earth warms the Sun.

            “Musings of a madman”.

            Do you agree with davie?

          • Des says:

            Again you avoid the subject matter. Do you or do you not agree that this month’s anomaly was above the trend? If not, provide some actual ANALYSIS in order to challenge it.

          • TheFinalNail says:

            Des put it more elegantly than me. Although the November value is below the October one, it still contributes to the overall warming trend.

            This can be seen visually by anyone who plots the UAH data on a chart and adds a linear trend line. Values that fall above the line contribute slightly to the warming trend; values that fall below the line reduce the warming trend slightly. The November value falls above the trend line.

            You can also demonstrate this mathematically by running the numbers (use the ‘LINEST’ tool in Excel, for example). The November value raises the trend in the full UAH data set from 0.1276 to 0.1278 C per decade. Trivial, I agree, but still upward; not “a slowdown in the rising of global temperature” as Laura had suggested.

            TFN

          • Svante says:

            Like so:
            https://tinyurl.com/y7lnytxm

            I agree Des, we should spend some time below the trend line in the future.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            des, was your question directed to me?

            “Do you or do you not agree that this months anomaly was above the trend?”

            Was it meant to be rhetorical, or do you not understand trend lines?

    • David Appell says:

      Thanks for pointing that out, Nail. I noticed the same thing.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      TFN…”This doesnt represent a slowdown in global warming, alas. In fact, the November 2017 value fractionally increases UAHs long term warming rate (since Dec 1978)”.

      The UAH trend can in no way be attributed to AGW. For one, it began in a period of global cooling due to volcanic aerosols and remained below average for 19 years. That is not an indication of anthropogenic global warming.

      The anomalies did not stay above the baseline till the 1998 extreme El Nino event, then it leveled off for 15 years to a flat trend. That 15 year flat trend is most definitely not an indication of AGW.

      • Des says:

        Sorry – WHICH eruption in the late 70s was strong enough to eject aerosols into the stratosphere?

      • David Appell says:

        I’d also like to hear the answer to Des’s question — which volcanic eruptions in the last ’70s?

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        “The anomalies did not stay above the baseline till the 1998 extreme El Nino event”

        Gordon lies again.

        In fact, by Jan 1997 the trend of UAH LT v6.0 was +0.09 C/decade. Statistically significant.

  23. Bindidon says:

    Svante on December 2, 2017 at 4:16 AM

    Why did he have to detrend his data?

    ‘Prior to analysis, all raw indices were linearly detrended’.

    As I wrote somewhere above, the detrending of all indices seems to have as the one and only goal to hide the detrending of the AMO.

    Originally, AMO detrending had as pretty good reason: to better show AMO’s cyclic 60 year character behind its trend. But inbetween, this cyclic character has superseded the original information to become AMO’s goal itself.

    Thus, since the detrended AMO variant is now called AMO for short, the original has got this stupid name ‘undetrended’, what reminds me these californian wine makers calling their wines made in steel tanks ‘unwooded’ [sic].

    Interestingly, no paper trying to show a natural source for warming with the help of a combination of AMO and PDO (trend-free as well of course) has ever made use of the original AMO data. For the entire record since 1856, this very probably wouldn’t work.

    Below is a link to a graph showing, from 1856 to 2016,
    – the two AMO variants,
    together with
    – the global temperature records produced by Hadley/CRU and the Berkeley Earth project.

    http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1512251294591.jpg

    Just like many people think that there is no global warming, of if well, that trace gases have nothing to do with it, I think, when looking at this graph, that AMO is all but a source of global temperature increase. It is no more than another tool to measure it.

    • Bindidon says:

      Missing detail: the four running means generated by Excel out of the monthly time series span over 180 months.

    • Fox says:

      Is it possible? AMO crossing below had.crut in 1998? Graph shows this unprecedented.

    • Richard M says:

      It is possible the AMO (in concert with the PDO) could be responsible for all of the warming (and cooling) which is often referred to as the Millennial cycle. This could explain the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods as well as the intervening cooler periods.

      Both appear to have cycles in the range of 60-70 years. If they differ by something like 4 years that would mean over time they would go into and out of phase with each other. You would have something like 15 cycles for a complete round trip = 900-1100 years.

      Looking at a couple of centuries would tell you nothing.

      This is not rocket science. It is an obvious possibility. In any real field of science these kinds of natural variations would be exhaustively examined. In climate pseudo-science they aren’t even investigated.

      • barry says:

        They are continually investigated.

        Why do skeptics assume, when they haven’t checked whether scientists have examined stuff… that scientists haven’t examined that stuff?

        Because it’s easier to be ignorant than actually do some research. The intellectual depravity is quite plain.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          barry rants: “The intellectual depravity is quite plain.”

          Yes barry, it is quite plain. Just look at the number of folks that believe CO2 can heat the planet.

        • Richard M says:

          If nothing is ever published on a subject then the only assumption can be that it hasn’t been investigated. In most science fields negative results are also published. However, it appears in climate science even mentioning natural climate factors is taboo.

          Another reason the field is complete pseudo-science.

  24. Bindidon says:

    About thirty years after having published his first paper about the laws of Thermodynamics, Rudolf Clausius presented a long reedition of his entire work.

    THE MECHANICAL THEORY OF HEAT
    by R. CLAUSIUS
    THIRD, REWRITTEN AND COMPLETED EDITION.
    FIRST VOLUME.

    Braunschweig, 1887

    SECTION XII.

    The concentration of heat and light beams and the limits of their effect.

    1. Subject of the investigation.

    What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.

    So no: the Earth doesn’t warm the Sun!

    But the Sun’s warming of Earth as well must, according to Clausius, be viewed as the result of a simultaneous double heat exchange.

    Nothing will prevent a LWIR photon emitted by Earth in direction of the Sun to reach the star.

    The fact that Sun’s contribution is probably more than 10^^20 higher than Earth’s doesn’t change anything to the rules described in physics books, like that of father and son Lienhard, that of Frank Incropera or that of Michael Modest.

    Who doesn’t understand this and stupidly discredits Clausius’ thoughts should read these three books instead.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      Bin tries his obfuscation: “Nothing will prevent a LWIR photon emitted by Earth in direction of the Sun to reach the star.”

      What does that mean to you, Bin?

      Are you implying that that LWIR photon will then warm the Sun?

      A photon traveling toward an object does NOT mean the photon will be “accepted”.

      Your failure to understand quantum physics is your problem, not mine.

      • Bindidon says:

        g*e*r*a*n on December 2, 2017 at 5:54 PM

        A photon traveling toward an object does NOT mean the photon will be accepted.

        As long as you do not present scientific litterature proving what you write, it remains no more than your private allegation.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Bin, here’s some “scientific litterature” [sic} for you.

          Bounce a tennis ball and see if it bounces higher, and higher, and higher, and higher.

          Hilarious.

          • MikeR says:

            Bindidon,

            Thanks for the link.

            I am looking forward to having a ring side seat (do you want to join me ?) to the mayhem of the next grudge match between Joe Postma, g*e*r*a*n, Gordon etc. on one side and Willis Eschenbach and Anthony Watts (see https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/24/can-a-cold-object-warm-a-hot-object/#comment-2675648) on the other side.

            An oldie on the same topic is http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/why-greenhouse-gas-warming-doesnt-break-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/ and of course we have Roy Spencer ridiculing, on more than one occasion. the arguments that g*e*r*a*n and Gordon advance.

            It seem the argument is even too stupid for those that are normally philosophical and political bedfellows

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            The post by WIllis is not alarming. There’s nothing really to argue about, except a possible minor semantic, here or there.

            You might fall asleep in your “ring side seat”.

          • barry says:

            Yes, skeptics Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer and JoNova agree that the atmosphere radiates groundward, and that this back radiation is the radiative process that slows the rate of radiation escape from the surface to space:

            The second law does not say a cold object cannot pass heat to a warmer object, it states that NET heat flow is always from warmer to colder…

            The a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n does not depend on whether the object struck is warmer or colder than the object that emitted the energy, it only depends on the a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.v.i.t.y of the struck object. However that object also emits energy some of which will radiate back to the first object and again be absorbed. Because the warmer object emits more energy there will be more traveling from warmer to cooler than vice versa and hence the NET heat flow will be from warmer to cooler.

            And here is an excellent point:

            The mechanism by which this energy loss is reduced cannot be by reducing the heat radiated by the surface because the atmosphere cannot influence the emissivity of the surface. Rather it acts by returning some of the energy radiated back to the surface. This is the back radiation.

            You could quibble over semantics, but this is the actual radiative mechanism by which rate of heat loss from surface to space is reduced.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            barry, you keep striving with your blah, blah, blah to somehow explain the 2nd Law.

            Just go with the KISS principle–“Keep it simple, stupid”.

            “Cold” cannot warm “hot”.

            Simple.

          • barry says:

            3 prominent skeptic websites agree with the mainstream view on back radiation. Those quotes above are from one of them (JoNova).

            As usual, you have nothing but rhetoric.

            You’re wrong. Simple enough for you?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            barry, the three websites you mentioned are operated by “Lukewarmers”, not “Skeptics”.

            Sorry, but you’ve got it wrong again.

          • barry says:

            Your view of them places you firmly in the extreme crazy land of AGW ‘skepticism’.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            barry, I’ve been describing myself as an “extreme Skeptic” for years. Where have you been?

          • barry says:

            In the land of thinking better of you, apparently.

      • Des says:

        Why don’t you dazzle us with a RELEVANT (a hard ask I know) explanation that illustrates your understanding of quantum mechanics. Bear in mind while answering that the process taking place at the 15 micron level does not involve changes in electron energy levels – that process is reserved for photons with much higher energy.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          des, hre are some basics for you to consider:

          First, the term “quantum mechanics” generally refers to the movements of the electrons, such as spin, orbital, momentum, etc. The term “quantum physics” typically refers to the larger field, involving specific emissions. People sometimes use the terms interchangeably, but there is a distinction.

          Second, both emission and “acceptance” are based on energy levels, with is determined by wavelength/frequency. So, claiming that ALL photons are ALWAYS “accepted” just means that someone doesn’t understand quantum physics.

    • gbaikie says:

      — Bindidon says:
      December 2, 2017 at 5:14 PM

      About thirty years after having published his first paper about the laws of Thermodynamics, Rudolf Clausius presented a long reedition of his entire work.

      THE MECHANICAL THEORY OF HEAT
      by R. CLAUSIUS
      THIRD, REWRITTEN AND COMPLETED EDITION.
      FIRST VOLUME.

      Braunschweig, 1887

      SECTION XII.

      The concentration of heat and light beams and the limits of their effect.

      1. Subject of the investigation.

      What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.

      So no: the Earth doesnt warm the Sun!

      But the Suns warming of Earth as well must, according to Clausius, be viewed as the result of a simultaneous double heat exchange. —

      Within the disintegrating heat, one see a very distance firefly.
      Alas, warm me even so distance firefly, for I am cooling very rapidly.

      • David Appell says:

        gbaikie says:
        “So no: the Earth doesnt warm the Sun!”

        Does the Earth radiate in all directions?
        Does radiation carry energy?
        Does some of this radiation reach the Sun?
        Does the Sun absorb this energy?
        What happens to an object’s temperature when it absorbs energy?

        • gbaikie says:

          “What happens to an objects temperature when it absorbs energy?”

          The object which radiates the energy cools [or transfers the energy to object absorbing the energy- the energy is always conserved [first law] – so one object cools and loses energy to the one absorbing and therefore gaining in temperature].

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”Does radiation carry energy?

          yes…electromagnetic energy. No heat involved with EM radiating through space.

          “Does some of this radiation reach the Sun?”

          Theoretically possible.

          “Does the Sun absorb this energy?”

          No. The absorbing electrons on the Sun are at an incredibly high energy level already and the ridiculously intensity of the EM from the Earth would have no effect whatsoever.

        • UK Ian brown says:

          Stop it Dave

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        gbaikie…”the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one”.

        You know this already, I am repeating for the likes of DA, binny, and norman. Clausius says only what the 2nd law states that the hotter body can warm the colder body.

        • gbaikie says:

          — Gordon Robertson says:
          December 3, 2017 at 2:40 AM

          gbaikiethe cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.–

          to clarify, gbaikie quoted Bindidon and Bindidon was quoting Rudolf Clausius, and Rudolf Clausius wrote: …the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one

          Gordon Robertson says me:
          You know this already, I am repeating for the likes of DA, binny, and norman. Clausius says only what the 2nd law states that the hotter body can warm the colder body.”

          Binny, myself, Gordon are repeating what the Clausius wrote.
          And Gordon repeating it for the sake of DA, binny, and norman.

          Whereas I am citing it, as part of prelude to a tiny offering of vogon poetry:

          “Vogon poetry is described as “the third worst poetry in the Universe” (behind that of the Azgoths of Kria; four members of an audience died of internal haemorrhaging during a recitation by their poet master Grunthos the Flatulent of his poem “Ode to a Small Lump of Green Putty I Found in My Armpit One Midsummer Morning” while the President of the Mid-Galactic Arts Nobbling Council survived by gnawing one of his own legs off. Grunthos himself was later killed by his own major intestine, which leaped up through his neck and throttled his brain when he attempted to read his twelve-book epic “My Favourite Bathtime Gurgles”. Etc:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogon#Poetry

          But it seems most would agree that Earth doesn’t warm the Sun. The being quite large, very hot and very far away.
          Nor does the earth warm any of the planets or stars in the sky. The Earth does warm the Moon by small amount and the Moon warms Earth by something like 1 joule per square meter.
          The Moon is quite close and there are parts of the Moon and Earth which are quite cold.

    • barry says:

      Temperature of a warmer object does not prevent radiation from a cooler one being absorbed by it. The sun could well absorb a fraction of Earth’s radiation, but “this simultaneous double heat exchange,” as Clauasius puts it (I’d call it radiation exchange) results in a NET flow from hot to cold. Always.

      • David Appell says:

        Except if the thermodynamic system isn’t adiabatic.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          davie, except if you have no clue about thermodynamics.

          But, I probably repeated myself.

          • Des says:

            Indeed you did. That tends to happen when you have no science of your own to contribute and restrict yourself to troll comments.

          • Norman says:

            Des

            g*e*r*a*n must restrict his comments to trolling. Insults and mindless points. When he does attempt physics he is a moron and demonstrates his stupidity. He knows he is a total faker and knows very little science. He pretends he knows things by looking up a few physics terms and presenting them like he knows what they mean. He really doesn’t know anything at all and comes up with some really illogical thoughts.

            That is why 99% of his comments contain no physics or science, just some “pet names” he makes up for other posters. He is not a very bright person. He lacks creativity even when he tries to come up with some insults and derogatory comments.

            If you have not seen this yet it is what I see when I read g*e*r*a*n’s empty posts.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JqT8jUbWNA

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            The con-man demonstrates his “psychological projection”: “He knows he is a total faker and knows very little science.”

            Norm has never has a meaningful physics course. His weak technical background is represented by his menial tasks as lab assistant, washing dishes.

            Hilarious.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            You forgot to mention the huge difference between me an you. I possess intelligence and learning ability. Regardless of starting point I am able to read and comprehend textbook material. This is something you are unable to do. You make up your own physics, study Joe Postma junk science and rarely post any material on physics.

            You degrade people and name call but rarely engage in meaningful discourse.

            You lack intelligence, creativity, reading ability and good manners. Pretty much a complete loser that wastes intelligent peoples’ time with meaningless sideline issues.

            Probably this post was far too long for your highly limited attention span so it probably goes over your ability to process.
            You are just a dumb person wishing he had some intelligence but the random dice did not offer you this ability.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            The con-man is impressed with himself: “I possess intelligence and learning ability.”

            Now, THAT is hilarious!

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            I see Davie is still peddling his “earth heats the sun” nonsense like some huckster Carny at the fair.

        • gammacrux says:

          Except if the thermodynamic system isnt adiabatic

          Nope.

          An adiabatic system in thermodynamics is merely a system that doesn’t exchange any heat with it’s surroundings.

          Period.

          So if heat flows spontaneously from body at T1 to body at T2 with T2 > T1 neither body is an adiabatic system and even the whole thing doesn’t need to be an adiabatic system at all.

          Yet it is quite true that there can indeed be a heat transfer from cold body to hot body but it is never a spontaneous natural irreversible proces with nothing else happening simultaneously.

          It needs some other transformation to take place in environment, for instance work must to be done and dissipated (with relevant entropy production) in order to compensate for the entropy decrease associated with heat transfer from cold to hot.
          Total entropy of universe must always increase.

          A refrigerator is an example and that demands an electric grid and an extra source of energy such as coal, natural gas, wind or nuclear fission and solar fusion.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”this simultaneous double heat exchange, as Clauasius puts it (Id call it radiation exchange) results in a NET flow from hot to cold…”

        Clausius said nothing about a two-way heat exchange he said the cooler body gains heat at the expense of the hotter body. You called it a radiation change, not a heat exchange, but the 2nd law of Clausius makes it clear that heat can only be transfered hot to cold.

        He said nothing about a net flow from hot to cold, that’s your idea. There is no such thing as a net flow of EM between a hotter and a colder body. You could not measure it even if you tried.

        • barry says:

          Clausius said nothing about a two-way heat exchange

          What he said has been posted here many times.

          —————————————————————-

          The concentration of heat and light beams and the limits of their effect.

          1. Subject of the investigation.

          … What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.

          —————————————————————-

          From:

          THE MECHANICAL THEORY OF HEAT
          by R. CLAUSIUS

          Braunschweig, 1887

          SECTION XII.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            barry…”the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange”

            It is the ultimate in cherry picking to read one sentence from a scientist and use it to override everything else he has said. I have responded to this several times as well.

            Clausius, and later Planck, presumed EM radiation was heat. Clausius in particular thought the ‘aether’ could conduct heat. Planck called radiation ‘heat rays’.

            It was not till much later that people began to realize that electrons in atoms absorbed EM and converted it to heat. Planck lamented that if he’d taken electron theory more seriously it would have saved him a great deal of trouble with his calculations. He was aware of electrons, the theory being developed in the 1890s, but he ignored it till he realized it explained what he needed.

            Electron theory was not presented till after the death of Clausius. He knew nothing about them, only about atoms. Given that fact, I think it’s amazing that he was able to develop the 1st law which is based on internal energy of atoms and their related work when vibrating in a solid.

            It was Bohr who proposed the model of the atom around 1914. He claimed electrons had to exist in specific quantum level orbits around the nucleus based on their angular momentum. He also claimed that electrons could change energy levels by emitting a photon of EM equivalent to the energy level difference it fell. Alternately, it could absorb a quantum of EM provided the EM intensity level and frequency corresponded to an exact change in energy level.

            That’s how astronomers detect hydrogen in stars. Hydrogen emits and absorbs EM ONLY at specific frequencies. By examining the types of lines they can determine the hydrogen density.

            Clausius could have had no idea of Bohr’s work back in the mid to latter 1890’s when he did his work. He really thought heat was transferred through the aether, although no one knew what the aether was. Einstein eventually claimed it was not there.

            We now know that heat cannot travel through space unless it’s by convection or conduction. It has to move as a bulk of atoms. When you feel the heat of a fire from a distance, you are feeling IR absorbed by your skin. The absorbed IR causes molecules in the skin to warm.

            If you’re really close, you will experience the fire directly by convection, but in a cooler atmosphere in winter, only your front half will warm from radiation since the surrounding air is too cold for convection to be effective.

          • barry says:

            Gordon,

            You said:

            Clausius said nothing about a two-way heat exchange he said the cooler body gains heat at the expense of the hotter body.

            I quoted him saying exactly both. Rather than admit he did say something about it, you weasel off to a lame ‘cherry-pick’ gambit.

            Dude, all your comment required was one example that disproved that “Clausius said nothing about a two-way heat exchange.” And we have an extremely clear example of him doing exactly that.

            It speaks well of people’s intellectual integrity when they are clear-minded enough to remember the point, and admit when they were wrong on it.

            This shimmy to some other point, when the rebuttal was clear and stark, is intellectual dishonesty, pure and simple.

            As I noted in my comments, I would call it a radiative exchange, not a heat exchange. Your comments hovered around that point. It was already covered in mine.

            The head of a pin is a lonely place to dance.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”Temperature of a warmer object does not prevent radiation from a cooler one being absorbed by it”.

        Why don’t you take a close look at the Stefan-Bolzmann equation and show me where it indicates heat can be transferred both ways between objects of different temperature.

        The equations has two temperature quantities, the temperature of the radiator, Tr, and the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere, Ta. Maybe there are other versions, it does not interest me much.

        Obviously, if Tr = Ta the quantity is 0, inferring the net radiation is 0. If Ta > Tr, it infers the body is absorbing.

        Nowhere does it address the issue of another body radiating. I have seen people on the Net try to do a two-body problem using S-B but I’ll bet they cannot prove it experimentally. Stefan admitted that.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one”.

      Clausius is not talking about heat here he is talking about EM. Before the discovery of EM as a transfer mechanism for heat via radiation, it was thought heat could flow through the atmosphere as radiant energy. That idea persisted till at least the time of Planck who referred to EM as heat rays. People today mistakenly refer to such EM as thermal radiation. There is nothing thermal in the definition of EM.

      Clausius indicates his overall understanding of the process, however, by claiming, “…the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one”.

      He obviously thought, as did others, that heat flowed through space, transferring heat physically from the warmer body to the cooler body. He says nothing about the reverse effect which would have contradicted his 2nd law.

      We now know that heat is converted from thermal energy to EM in the warmer body and from EM back to thermal energy in the cooler body. That process is not reversible.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        ps. Clausius is correct that the cooler body experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer body. When the warmer body radiates EM it loses a quantum of heat equivalent to the intensity of the emitted EM. The cooler body receives that converted energy and that raises it’s heat content.

        The process cannot be reversed.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon just admitted that light quanta carry heat.

          Finally…………………….

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Gordon just admitted that light quanta carry heat.

            Finally.”

            Speaking of dementia, have you had your comprehension checked recently? I said nothing of the kind, I have stated all along that EM does not have heat as a property.

          • David Appell says:

            “…quantum of heat…”

        • David Appell says:

          And he just admitted that heat resides in material objects.

          • Norman says:

            David Appell

            It may be that Gordon Robertson does have actual dementia. My Father (90) has it and he cannot remember more than a few minutes of conversation. Also my Father can recall details of long past events but has little memory of current events. Gordon Robertson has good recall of 19th Century Physics but does not understand anything more modern. He rejects QM even though it came about from experimental evidence. He rejects EMR wave/particle duality even though many many experiments have demonstrated just that.

            It appears to me that he is fairly old and wants to make some type of impact with his life. He is on a crusade to prove everything related to Global Warming is a hoax and lie (even if it means making up his own physics).

            Gordon Robertson is not nearly as offensive as g*e*r*a*n who relishes in annoying people.

          • David Appell says:

            Norman, sorry for your father. My father had a stroke, and he is the same way.

          • Norman says:

            David Appell

            Yes it is a sad thing. They are there physically but what they had been is no longer. Was your Dad also interested in sciences?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”It may be that Gordon Robertson does have actual dementia”.

            Based on the one-sided discussions we’ve had, where I have been forced to school you on basic science, if I have dementia, you are an actual idiot, meaning you have an IQ somewhere in the 70s.

            Svante posted a link that you read, and you still could not accept what they were saying about electrons being responsible for the absorp-tion and emission of EM. That information is in basic electronics theory and it’s applied later in the electronics related to communications.

            If electrons could not emit and absorb EM, we’d have no wireless communications whatsoever. Basic antenna theory requires it. Nor would we have any light in the universe, or heat from the Sun.

            Once again, what else is there in an atom or molecule that could possibly absorb and emit EM? There are only two particles in an atom with charge, the proton in the nucleus and the electrons orbiting it.

            Come on, man, this is not rocket-science, it’s elementary atomic theory.

            I have never rejected QM, the theory I am presenting to you is based on QM. I have simply cautioned that the more extreme claims of QM are based on highly theoretical math and should be carefully considered before believing them.

            Do you seriously think that a particle a mile away from another particle can affect that particle? Einstein thought it was crazy, Schrodinger thought it was crazy, and so do I. However, many modern QM advocates talk about it as if it happens every day.

            Schrodinger even proposed the Cat Paradox to mock that extreme form of QM. He claimed that, according to certain claims in QM, the cat could be either dead, alive, or both dead and alive. The father of QM divorced himself from the modern nonsense started by Bohr circa 1930.

            That’s how stupid QM can get if you don’t approach it with a level head and a requirement that it makes sense in our reality. That’s what Einstein and Schrodinger demanded, it has to make sense in a physical reality.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”And he just admitted that heat resides in material objects”.

            Of course it does. Since heat is the kinetic energy of atoms in motion it must reside in material objects. You just can’t heat the Sun with radiation from the Earth as you have claimed several times.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            You have schooled me in NOTHING and forget everything we discuss. It seems you are unable to retain any conversation more than a short period of time and go about repeating what was discussed as if had never been.

            From the last thread you just completely ignored. These quotes come straight from the Svante link you believe you understand.

            HERE ONCE AGAIN: “Gordon Robertson

            Your bias against GHE is so incredibly strong it blinds your reading ability.

            YOU: Youre cherry picking, you have not read the entire article.

            Read the material just under Figure 1 of Svante link.

            It states: The energy of IR radiation is weaker than that of visible and ultraviolet radiation, and so the type of radiation produced is different. A*b*s*o*r*p*t*i*o*n of IR radiation is typical of molecular species that have a small energy difference between the rotational and vibrational states. A criterion for IR a*s*o*r*p*t*i*o*n is a net change in dipole moment in a molecule as it vibrates or rotates.

            Also: The energy levels can be rated in the following order: electronic > vibrational > rotational. Each of these transitions differs by an order of magnitude. Rotational transitions occur at lower energies (longer wavelengths) and this energy is insufficient and cannot cause vibrational and electronic transitions but vibrational (near infra-red) and electronic transitions (ultraviolet region of the electromagnetic spectrum) require higher energies.

            Problem is, even if you read this you will forget it in a little while and make claims that I never responded to you about it.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson wrote:
            “Once again, what else is there in an atom or molecule that could possibly absorb and emit EM?”

            vib_rat_ional states
            rot_at_ional states
            nuclear states
            phonons
            weak bosons
            and more………

            First two are, of course, crucial for GHG ab_sorp_tion and em_ission of EM.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “You just cant heat the Sun with radiation from the Earth as you have claimed several times.”

            Does the Earth radiate in all directions?
            Does radiation carry energy?
            Does some of this radiation reach the Sun?
            Does the Sun absorb this energy?
            If not, why not?
            If not, where does this energy go?
            What happens to an objects temperature when it absorbs energy?

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “Since heat is the kinetic energy of atoms in motion it must reside in material objects”

            Yet you just wrote about a “quantum of heat” being emitted….

            That’s IR.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie wants to know:

            “Does the Sun absorb this energy?”

            No.

            “If not, why not?”

            QP

  25. barry says:

    UK Met Office Oct global anomaly is released. Like UAH and GISS, the surface anomaly increased from Sep to Oct.

    https://tinyurl.com/ycxz3kfb

    RSS and NOAA recorded a downshift from Sep to Oct.

    UAH had the largest change of all of them.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      barry…”UK Met Office Oct global anomaly is released”.

      The UK Met Office is down there with NOAA and GISS. They were exposed in the 2009 Climategate email scandal when their leader Phil Jones advised his cronies via email to obstruct the FOI request submitted by Steve McIntyre to the UK government for a release of Met Office temperature data.

      Jones claimed he could not release it because he had changed it and it did not all belong to him. In the same emails, he boasted that he and Kevin would see to it that a paper co-authored by John Christy of UAH would not make it into the IPCC review.

      They are all collaborating to push the pseudo-science of AGW and there are alarmists on this blog supporting that scientific misconduct.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson wrote:
        “In the same emails, he boasted that he and Kevin would see to it that a paper co-authored by John Christy of UAH would not make it into the IPCC review.”

        Another lie from Gordon.

        Phil Jones was just blowing off steam to a friend, with the expectation his email would be private. Everyone has the right to do that.

        Gordon can offer no evidence that Jones acted on this. None.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”Phil Jones was just blowing off steam to a friend, with the expectation his email would be private. Everyone has the right to do that.

          Gordon can offer no evidence that Jones acted on this. None”.

          Seriously, what a lame excuse.

          Does that explain how Jones made good on his boast to block the paper from the IPCC to which he referred?

        • barry says:

          Jones was referring to McIntyre’s paper. It was included in the 207 IPCC report.

          Gordon, as usual, makes up complete rubbish.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson wrote:
          “Does that explain how Jones made good on his boast to block the paper from the IPCC to which he referred?”

          What paper, Gordon?

          Specifically, what paper?

    • barry says:

      In 2009 some of the data was copywritten by some of the national Met Offices around the world providing them, and Jones was not permitted to release them. As of right now, only data for Poland is unavailable according to their agreement.

      The rest of the data has been available for years. When will skeptics do something with it?

      • David Appell says:

        So you’re saying Gordon again was misleading. Hardly surprising.

        • barry says:

          M&M didn’t ‘destroy’ the hockey stick.

          Most of the data (95%) was already online in 2009, and by 2011, all but Polish data was available to the public.

          Jones’ complaint was that McIntyre wasn’t interested in producing new work only in looking for fault.

          Jones was absolutely right. In the 6 years since 99% of the data has been available, McIntyre has done nothing with it.

          Raw NOAA data has also been available for years.

          McIntyre still hasn’t done the work.

          McIntyre is only interested in padding his pet peeves. He has contributed no paper to the debate for more than decade. All he wanted to do was tear down AGW. He failed. And when the data was available he changed the subject.

          A fitting hero for you.

        • lewis says:

          David,
          DId you lose your job with the lying Obama administration. Where you would have fit right in (to quote you)

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”In 2009 some of the data was copywritten by some of the national Met Offices around the world providing them, and Jones was not permitted to release them”.

        Then why did he reply to McIntyre initially, “Why should I release the data to you, you’ll use it against me”? That was after MacIntyre and McKitrick used Mann et al’s data in mbb98 to destroy the hockey stick.

        Jones obviously knew there were inaccuracies in the data that McIntyre could expose.

        • barry says:

          M&M didnt ‘destroy’ the hockey stick.

          Most of the data (95%) was already online in 2009, and by 2011, all but Polish data was available to the public.

          Jones complaint was that McIntyre wasnt interested in producing new work only in looking for fault.

          Jones was absolutely right. In the 6 years since 99% of the data has been available, McIntyre has done nothing with it.

          Raw NOAA data has also been available for years.

          McIntyre still hasnt done the work.

          McIntyre is only interested in padding his pet peeves. He has contributed no paper to the debate for more than decade. All he wanted to do was tear down AGW. He failed. And when the data was available he changed the subject.

          A fitting hero for you.

  26. Gordon Robertson says:

    Another chink in the armor of alarmists.

    When Tyndall initially claimed that CO2 in the atmosphere would raise atmospheric temperatures, then Arrhenius claimed the same, they must have presumed there was no CO2 in the atmosphere.

    At the time of the Industrial Era, the IPCC claimed a 270 ppmv concentration of CO2. Why did that level, which is much higher than the difference between then and 400 ppmv, not cause catastrophic warming and climate change? Same planet, same solar energy, same surface radiation.

    It should have been enough to raise the level of water vapour to the tipping point claimed by Hanson, and now Schmidt.

    Where’s the criteria and the proof for how much CO2 is required to raise atmospheric temperatures to a catastrophic level? Where’s the math? Schmidt claimed at a warming effect for CO2 of 9% to 25%, where’s the math?

    I have submitted the math to support the Ideal Gas Equation and Dalton’s law of partial pressures to show CO2 could not possibly cause more than a few hundredths of a degree C warming based on an inadequate mass. Let’s see the math to support the hypothesis that CO2 can catastrophically warm the atmosphere.

    Neither Tyndall nor Arrhenius produced the math. If they had, the equations would be available from alarmist scientists.

    AGW conjecture is sheer pseudo-science.

    • Des says:

      270 ppm DID cause warming. More than 30C of it. The equilibrium temperature of the earth with no greendhouse gases is 255K.

      • Kristian says:

        Des says, December 3, 2017 at 2:45 AM:

        270 ppm DID cause warming. More than 30C of it.

        Really? Then I’m sure you wouldn’t mind presenting the observational data from the real Earth system unequivocally showing this to be the case.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…Here you go, Kristian: https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif

            There’s nothing in the graph to indicate it’s source, whether it was measured directly by instruments or whether it came from the nether regions of Schmidt’s mind.

          • Kristian says:

            And how exactly does that spectrum show that atmospheric CO2 is the cause of surface warming?

          • David Appell says:

            Kristian says:
            “And how exactly does that spectrum show that atmospheric CO2 is the cause of surface warming?”

            It shows that outgoing heat is blocked precisely at the wavelengths CO2 and other GHGs absorb.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “Theres nothing in the graph to indicate its source, whether it was measured directly by instruments or whether it came from the nether regions of Schmidts mind.”

            This came from published science, Gordon. You’re too lazy to look it up, and wouldn’t understand it anyway.

            “THE FAR-INFRARED EARTH,” (2008) J. Harries et al, Rev. Geophys., 46, RG4004, doi:10.1029/2007RG000233

            and the many references cited therein.

          • Kristian says:

            David Appell says, December 4, 2017 at 7:10 PM:

            It shows that outgoing heat is blocked precisely at the wavelengths CO2 and other GHGs absorb.

            No, it doesn’t. It’s an EMISSION spectrum, not an A.B.S.O.R.P.T.I.O.N spectrum, as most people – including you – seem to believe. It doesn’t show the outgoing surface emission being partially ‘blocked’ (eaten into) by the overlying atmosphere. It shows the outgoing atmospheric emission. The atmosphere (the troposphere, really) is cooler than the surface. So its emission to space is naturally smaller. It doesn’t reveal the CAUSE of either the surface or the tropospheric temperature.

            Try again.

        • David Appell says:

          PS: You could measure the Earth’s heat gain from the greenhouse by integrating the area between that figure’s red and black lines.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            No, davie. You keep making the same mistake.

            That “spectrum” you love so much is NOT “real Earth system”.

            But, something tells me you will keep linking to it. It’s like your blanket. You just can’t get along without it.

            Hilarious.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            g*r…”Hilarious”.

            Sad, actually. Most politicians believe this pseudo-science. Here in Canada one newspaper referred to our female Minster of Climate Change as a Climate Barbie. Totally apt, she comes across as a complete airhead with her gushing about climate change.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon, I’m sure she’s much smarter and better informed than you are. Here you give no evidence of understanding anything. Not anything. And you repeatedly lie — all of us here see it.

    • barry says:

      Eventually it becomes tedious to list the same old canards and rebut them, and then to see new bits of bullshit made up wholesale.

      When Tyndall initially claimed that CO2 in the atmosphere would raise atmospheric temperatures, then Arrhenius claimed the same, they must have presumed there was no CO2 in the atmosphere.

      This stream of bollocks is limited only by the turgid imagination of skeptics.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”Eventually it becomes tedious to list the same old canards and rebut them, and then to see new bits of bullshit made up wholesale”.

        I took your protests with amusement since you took the statement from me above out of the context in which it was presented. You mist have skimmed the article and left in disgust after reading the above.

        I went on to point out that 270 ppmv of CO2 should have created the tipping point of Hansen long before the Industrial Era. It should have at least lead to catastrophic climate change.

        Everything seems to have been fine throughout recent history prior to the Industrial Era then all hell broke loose when we started emitting large quantities of CO2, which were initially dwarfed by the existing 270 ppmv.

        Besides that, the Industrial Era occurred in the 2nd phase of the Little Ice Age when global temps were 1 to 2 C below normal. Does it not count if the LIA ended by 1850? The planet had to re-warm anyway, why blame it on something like anthropogenic gases?

        Tyndall’s experiment was interesting but how about the experiments of Dalton, which lead to his law that is still valid today on partial pressures? There is no doubt that mixed gases in a fixed volume contribute heat to the mix based on their mass. Just how much can a gas with a mass of a few hundredths of a percent contribute?

      • barry says:

        I went on to point out that 270 ppmv of CO2 should have created the tipping point of Hansen long before the Industrial Era.

        Nope, you went on to say that, which is one in your laundry list of canards.

        Your nonsense is tiresome. 270 PPM was the pre-industrial baseline atmospheric CO2 content (280 is more cited) for thousands of years, and it reached that level from about 180 PPM at the end of the last ice age, when the biosphere underwent significant changes.

        A change of total atmospheric CO2 content from 270 PPM to the current 403 PPM is an increase of 49%.

        I tend to go with the higher pre-industrial baseline of 280 PPM, which is the value most often cited.

        A change of total atmospheric CO2 content from 280 PPM to the current 403 PPM is an increase of 44%.

        IOW, CO2 atmospheric content has increased by nearly half its total since the industrial revolution. That’s significant in anyone’s books.

        • PhilJ says:

          Hi barry,
          Just to give that some perspective …
          Its a change of 0.0123 % of the atmospheric content …
          Oh no! The sky is falling….!

        • barry says:

          Swallow that proportion of arsenic to your blood volume and report back.

          For greater interest, try that proportion of LSD to you blood volume and report what happened.

          Incredulity about fractions is so…. scientific.

        • barry says:

          98% of atmospheric content is not ‘greenhouse’ gases.

          Back to the drawing board.

    • Norman says:

      Gordon Robertson

      YOU FALSELY CLAIM: “Neither Tyndall nor Arrhenius produced the math. If they had, the equations would be available from alarmist scientists.”

      Just plain wrong.

      Here is the paper by Arrhenius and yes he has math and calculations.
      http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

      His equations may not be correct or reflect the real Earth system but your claim was that he produced no math which is completely wrong.

      You lose credibility on all your posts when you purposefully make false claims. Why would anyone believe anything you post when you demonstrate you make things up.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        The con-man pounds on his keyboard so much, the actually gets something right once in a while.

        “His [Arrhenius] equations may not be correct or reflect the real Earth system. ..”

        BINGO.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        norman…I’ll let others address Arrhenius since I have no interest in his suppositions. He admitted back in his day that no one had tested his theory nor had he since he could not afford the equipment.

        Arrhenius fell into the same trap of confusing EM with heat. I can forgive him because no one knew how EM was converted to heat and back by electrons. His paper came out just as electron theory was emerging.

        https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/arrhenius-revisited/

        Don’t agree with everything in here but it reveals things about Arrhenius:

        https://principia-scientific.org/global-warming-alarm-is-built-on-200-year-old-discredited-science/

        • Norman says:

          Gordon Robertson

          I was reading the material from PSI and I don’t agree with anything they claim. The words they use are the type cult programming uses. They are not science, they are cult programmers to manipulate people like g*e*r*a*n who are not very intelligent but think they are. The PSI make people like g*e*r*a*n feel brilliant and for that sensation he becomes loyal to the cult even though he makes an idiot of himself outside the cult.

          Here is real science and not the manipulation of the PSI group (which has zero science just empty attacks of actual science they will not demonstrate).
          http://www.patarnott.com/atms411/pdf/StaleyJuricaEffectiveEmissivity.pdf

          This one gives calculations for determining the emissivity of the atmosphere.

          Then you have this empirical data which demonstrates the reality of the math and the correct logical thought in determining it.

          https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5a24d0d587e75.png

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            Here is what PSI states: “So-called downwelling or back radiation heating is a climatic chimera conjured up by government-funded researchers who made themselves a post-normal breed apart from those in the hard sciences. Climatologists want you to believe in their magic gas. But their notion of back radiation heating is an alien concept to those trained in tougher disciplines such as Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Medicine, etc. Frankly, for more than a generation third rate researchers have been peddling a computer-generated fiction, a slant on radiative physics that relies heavily on discredited 19th century notions of a magic gas and little, if anything, on actual measurements and verifiable scientific techniques.”

            Yet they do not accept actual measurements and verifiable science. I would consider this group to be actual science deniers. The evidence is real and yet they do not accept it.

            Why would you consider these crackpots a credible source of anything?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            The con-man determines: “The evidence is real and yet they do not accept it.”

            Norm, let me see if I can help you to understand. You believe the “evidence” is real. Suppose one day you drive to get some groceries. But, there are no groceries. There is no grocery store!

            Would you return home “believing” you had the groceries?

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            Very stupid analogy for the situation. The DWIR is a measured value.

            When will you do an experiment if you are so convinced your buddies at PSI know what they are talking about. I look at them as a bunch of crackpots snake oil salesmen. They are clever enough to convince people like you and who are easily manipulated by emotional language (not science, that is far too difficult for your mind to understand).

            PSI buddies tell you all the hundreds of thousands of physicists have been wrong for decades, all the heat transfer equations used in industry are totally flawed and only they know the truth. Wow! Talk about one gullible person, or make that two. Gordon has swallowed their crap as easily as you do. You actually believe them. Crazy! All the scientists are fools but the handful at PSI. Strange that they do very little experimentation but act as total experts.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Con-man, you didn’t quote me once. Consequently, EVERYTHING you pounded-out is WRONG!

            Better luck next time.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            I am wondering how long it took you to come up with your new tactic of nonsense that everything you post is correct and all I post is incorrect so if I don’t quote you it is wrong. It is a weak attempt at humor. Maybe you will dig deep and come up with some really funny stuff. It seems unlikely because you have a low creativity. Maybe you looked up that tactic on GOOGLE and thought you should use it. Even that might have been too hard for you to develop on your own.

            Probably you type in “troll tactics” to get your best material.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            You’re still grasping at straws, con-man. And, you don’t even realize that you’re the comedian.

            Hilarious.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          norman…”I was reading the material from PSI and I dont agree with anything they claim. The words they use are the type cult programming uses”.

          Ironic. I find your writings to be borderline cultish.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          “Arrhenius fell into the same trap of confusing EM with heat.”

          You just admitted this a few days ago:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          December 2, 2017 at 10:05 PM
          ps. “…When the warmer body radiates EM it loses a quantum of heat equivalent to the intensity of the emitted EM.”

          http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-274496

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        norman…”You lose credibility on all your posts when you purposefully make false claims”.

        Did some more research and stand by my claim. Neither Tyndall nor Arrhenius produced any credible math to show how CO2 absorbs EM. Apparently Tyndall was not interested in the absorbing power of GHGs, he was only interested in opaqueness, the fact that it could partially block radiation shone through GHGs.

        Here’s a good expose on radiation in particular, from it’s history.

        https://principia-scientific.org/publications/History-of-Radiation.pdf

        We have to seriously question presumptions that have been made over the years based on other theories that could be incorrect.

        • Norman says:

          Gordon Robertson

          The problem with the paper you linked me to is that simple math is beyond the writer’s ability to comprehend.

          I have already explained it to you but you can’t understand it. Obviously the cult programmers have deeply convinced you of the correctness of their incorrect concepts.

          If you have a hot object emitting 500 W/m^2 and a colder object emitting 200 W/m^2 toward the hot object. The HEAT FLOW from the hot object (if the view factor is one, such as the 200 W/m^2 emitter is a sphere completely surrounding the hotter inner sphere) 300 W/m^2.

          If you did not have the emitting colder sphere the hot object would have a heat flow of 500 W/m^2.

          It is really simple math but your PSI people are not able to process it.

          Now if you can accept this. Consider now the inner sphere has a heat input of 400 W/m^2. Initial state it is losing heat at 300 W/m^2. What do you think will happen?

          Simple math would see that adding 400 W/m^2 while it is losing 300 W/m^2 will leave more energy in the object and it will heat according to its heat capacity until the energy output equals the energy input, then it will remain at an equilibrium temperature.

          Now remove the 200 W/m^2 emitting sphere and what happens. Now the hot object is emitting a full 500 W/m^2 and it is only receiving an input of 400 W/m^2, it will cool. Easy to see the people who you believe an not able to process this type of math and give a lot of diversion.

          • PhilJ says:

            Hi Norman,

            Im going to assume this is in a vacum so there is no conduction / convection.. And that the materials of both the sphere and the shell are identical so then… Outside thr shell.. Cold empty space..

            You have the sphere at some temp T1 such that it radiates at 500w/m2
            And the shell at some lower temp T2 radiating 300w/m2..

            Net RT is therefore 200w from sphere to shell so the sphere will cool and the shell warm until net RT is 0 and both are at some temp T3 at which point they will both continue to cool together…

            If however you have a 400w power source to the sphere … The spheres temp will not drop lower than that at which it radiates 400w and the shell at net RT of zero will also radiate 400 w

            400w in 400 w out and net RT between sphere and shell 0… Sphere and shell at same temp…

          • PhilJ says:

            Hi Norman,

            Im going to assume this is in a vacum so there is no conduction / convection.. And that the materials of both the sphere and the shell are identical so then… Outside thr shell.. Cold empty space..

            You have the sphere at some temp T1 such that it radiates at 500w/m2
            And the shell at some lower temp T2 radiating 300w/m2..

            Net RT is therefore 200w from sphere to shell so the sphere will cool and the shell warm until net RT is 0 and both are at some temp T3 at which point they will both continue to cool together…

            If however you have a 400w power source to the sphere … The spheres temp will not drop lower than that at which it radiates 400w and the shell at net RT of zero will also radiate 400 w

            400w in 400 w out and net RT between sphere and shell 0… Sphere and shell at same temp… (Actually outer shell slightly cooler due to larger surface area)

          • Norman says:

            PhilJ

            My point with the spheres was to demonstrate easily to Gordon that a cold object can make a hot object’s temperature increase (provided it has a power source adding energy).

            You can do the reverse. Have a sphere radiating 400 W/m^2 with a power input of 400 W/m^2. It is an equilibrium condition. Now add a cold shell around this sphere that is radiating 200 W/m^2 from both its sides. The inner sphere is gaining 400 W/m^2, that will not change with the addition of the shell. The Heat Flow from the surface of the hot sphere is reduced to 200 W/m^2 from its previous 400 W/m^2. What has to happen to the temperature of the sphere? It must now go up. The cold shell is driving up the surface temperature of the heated sphere.

            And NO, in you case the sphere and shell will NOT reach the same temperature. That is the Postma twisted version of physics that is not supportable.

            Real physics, in your description, would still have the unpowered shell at a considerably lower temperature. Postma can’t grasp that the shell has two radiating sides while the inner sphere has only one.

          • Norman says:

            PhilJ

            Here is my math for your situation.

            1) Inner sphere surface area of 1 m^2 emissivity of 1 to make calculations easier, there are materials that approach this emissivity.

            2) Inner sphere is powered by 400 Watt power supply of continuous power.

            No surroundings but cold space the surface temperature will get to 289.8 K.

            Put an unpowered shell around it that is 1 cm away from the sphere. Its surface area is 1.071 m^2 (slightly larger).

            The energy from the sphere is completely absorbed by the shell at first, no radiation is seen leaving the outer shell. The shell warms and starts to emit radiant energy. You are correct, the outer shell must reach a temperature where it can get rid of 400 Watts of power. With a surface area of 1.071 m^2 that means it will reach an equilibrium temperature where it is radiating at 373.48 W/m^2 (400 Watt/1.071 m^2). The surface of the sphere will reach 284.89 K, little cooler than the initial temperature of the inner sphere. This is where the Postma and g*e*r*a*n logic break down. g*e*r*a*n makes up his own physics and declares the inner surface of the shell indeed radiates at the 373.48 W/m^2 level toward the sphere but his (without the slightest evidence and in violation of Kirchhoff’s Law) pseudoscience says that because the sphere is powered it cannot absorb this incident radiant energy. Just made up physics, no evidence, no proof, against established science but he declares this is reality (too much alcohol on his part is what I am guessing).

            So if you are not a crackpot like Postma or g*e*r*a*n but rely on actual physics you would accept that the 373.48 W/m^2 will be absorbed by the heated sphere and become part of its energy input.

            With no shell the incident energy hitting the sphere would be close to zero watts/m^2. Now it has a 400 Watt power source and is receiving 373.48 Watts from the shell. It will continue to warm until it reaches an equilibrium with the energy input of 773.48 Watts. It has a surface area of 1 m^2 so it will reach a temperature that radiates 773.48 W/m^2 which gives it a new equilibrium temperature of 341.76 K. The shell forced the temperature of the inner sphere to rise by around 52 K.

            If you analyze all the math no laws of physics are broken. The 400 watts in is leaving the outer shell, the hot sphere is always transferring heat to the colder shell. The lab objects getting warmer by increasing the temperature of the cold air is analogically the same thing. The rate of heat loss of the heated sphere is reduced by the increased temperature of the warmed shell.

            If you read MikeR you get even more bang if you used a mirror rather than a shell, it would reflect almost 100% of the energy back to the shell.

          • Norman says:

            PhilJ

            I will try to figure out a mirror effect. The mirror is good enough only 0.1 % of the energy leaves the system.

            If the sphere inside is gaining 400 watts the outer mirror would only lose 1% of this, the rest is reflected back to the sphere to be absorbed by it. So 4 watts can leave initial state. In order to reach an equilibrium 400 watts must be able to leave the mirror. That means the heated sphere would have to be radiating 40000 W/m^2 to get 400 watts out of the mirror. The surface of the sphere would get to 916.5 K (1190 F).

    • Svante says:

      Gordon says: “Where’s the math”?

      It is here: http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/

      Change CO2 ppms and get ‘Upward IR Heat Flux’ in W/m2.

      Validated and verified by the US Air Force.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        A funny find, Svante.

        800 ppm gives the same ground temp as 200 ppm.

        (Better not show this to Warmists!)

      • barry says:

        Maybe because:

        The model does not compute global warming, that is, it doesn’t change the Earth temperature in response to changes in the atmosphere.

        http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/modtran.doc.html

        It’s a waste of time linking stuff for skeptics. They don’t investigate.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Never a waste of time to bust the pseudoscience offered up by the unwashed.

        • barry says:

          Can’t bust anything when you fail to properly read references. The rhetorical shimmies when you’re wrong fool no one.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Well barry, you’re wrong again.

            The fact that you’re fighting to save Svante’s effort is proof it was “busted”.

            (Hard to keep that sinking AGW ship afloat, huh?)

          • barry says:

            The model doesn’t calculate surface temp when parameters are changed.

            That’s what you got wrong and that’s why you’re babbling about other stuff.

            Your diversions fool no one. Except perhaps yourself.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            barry, why are you so desperately running from the truth?

            1) Svante provided the link, clearly advertising it as support for AGW.
            2) I indicated it was a worthless link.
            3) You tried to “save” the link by suggesting that I had not “properly read references”.

            Now you’re trying to “deny” the bust. Great, the more advertising your do for Svante’s fraudulent effort, the better. Sink that ship.

          • barry says:

            The model calculates changes in upward IR heat flux in W/m2 when you change the CO2 level, as Svante said.

            Svante is correct on this.

            Then you chimed in with:

            A funny find, Svante.

            800 ppm gives the same ground temp as 200 ppm.

            (Better not show this to Warmists!)

            I pointed out that had you explored the model you would have discovered that:

            The model does not compute global warming, that is, it doesn’t change the Earth temperature in response to changes in the atmosphere.

            You made an assumption without reading up on what the model does, and your comment based on this ignorance was false. Everything youve said since is BS: youve been wriggling and squirming to avoid admitting your mistake. No one is fooled by these shenanigans.

          • Nate says:

            G*

            You are departing from your analogy, with a lot of handwaving and a confusing example, but you give no fundamental reasons for the departure.

            If the radiation heat transfer law is not valid anymore, then what equation is available to replace it? How are we to calculate heat flow in any situation then? Do you have an alternative that is not just guessing?

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Wrong again, barry!

          Svante clearly wanted the link to “prove” AGW/CO2 nonsense. He was responding to the issue of there is no math to support the CO2 nonsense.

          His link was a FAIL, as I pointed out.

          You are now trying to lash out at me, because I busted the pseudoscience.

          It’s fun to watch.

          • barry says:

            His link did exactly what he said it did, but not what you said it did. Svante is correct, you are not.

            Watching you wriggle and squirm trying to get a win after making a clear mistake is slightly amusing.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            barry, his link was in response to “Where’s the math”. Which came from Gordon identifying (CORRECTLY) that there is no mathematical proof of the AGW/CO2 nonsense.

            So, his link FAILED. Your pathetic defense has FAILED.

            Where to now? Calling me a “liar”?

            Your desperation is hilarious.

          • barry says:

            Gordon’s comment was about CO2 absorbing EM. That’s what Svante replied to with a model that calculates the change in emissivity in W/m2 from changes in CO2 concentrations.

            You made a snide comment about surface temps not changing from change in atmospheric CO2, which the model does not calculate, as stated at the site. Your comment was based on ignorance of what the model actually does.

            Wriggling and squirming and still wrong.

            Please keep digging.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        svante…”It is here:”

        All based on models and theory, svante. Let’s see how 0.04% of the atmosphere significantly heats the atmosphere.

        Of course, you have claimed that mass is irrelevant in the atmosphere so our discussion is pointless. You need to deal in realities rather than theories. The molecular gases in the atmosphere are real and we have well-defined laws governing them with regard to how much heat they contribute.

        If your atmospheric window theories do not agree with those well-established laws then they are wrong.

        The problem is seriously complex. In this blog, we have talked about the actions of single electrons and photons. That cannot be done for the simple reason we cannot measure at the single particle level. We try to visualize at that level for clarity, at least, I do, but it’s a dangerous practice when it comes to reality.

      • barry says:

        The model calculates changes in upward IR heat flux in W/m2 when you change the CO2 level, as Svante said.

        Svante is correct on this.

        Then you chimed in with:

        A funny find, Svante.

        800 ppm gives the same ground temp as 200 ppm.

        (Better not show this to Warmists!)

        I pointed out that had you explored the model you would have discovered that:

        The model does not compute global warming, that is, it doesnt change the Earth temperature in response to changes in the atmosphere.

        You made an assumption without reading up on what the model does, and your comment based on this ignorance was false. Everything you’ve said since is BS: you’ve been wriggling and squirming to avoid admitting your mistake. No one is fooled by these shenanigans.

    • Bindidon says:

      I read Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius and the latter’s contradictor (Knut) Angstroem (who did contradict him far less than dumb skeptics believe, see his paper ‘Ueber die Bedeutumg
      des Wasserdampfes umd der Kohlensaeure bei der Absor-ption der Erdatmosphaere’, Annalen der Physik 1900).

      One thing happens to be sure to me: the Robertson troll never has read even one of all their contributions.

      What he at best did superficially, diagonally read is the garbage about all that uploaded on the pseudoskeptic blogosphere.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…”One thing happens to be sure to me: the Robertson troll never has read even one of all their contributions”.

        Actually, I was quite impressed with Tyndall’s experiment. Went through the diagram piece by piece till I could understand what he was doing. The guy was very scientific, unlike climate modelers of today.

        Show me anything from Tyndall or Arrhenius where they lay out mathematically the sensitivity of the atmosphere to GHGs. In fact, why don’t you supply a mathematical explanation of how much ACO2 can warm the atmosphere?

        I have already supplied a general explanation why it can’t, more than a few hundredths C, using the Ideal Gas Equation and Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressures.

        • Ball4 says:

          “using ..Daltons Law of Partial Pressures.”

          The partial pressures are immaterial Gordon, all the atm. gas constituents are working at its total pressure.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ball4…”The partial pressures are immaterial Gordon, all the atm. gas constituents are working at its total pressure”.

            Yes, I know that, however, the total is the sum of the partial pressures as per Dalton. So, look at the partial pressures which are directly proportional to the partial massess.

            In a constant volume system like the Earth’s atmosphere temperature is directly proportional to pressure which is directly proportional to mass. Before you start in about weather systems let me remind you that weather systems do not affect the mass or the volume. In the overall system, T is still proportional to P.

            Ideal Gas Law…PV = nRT, or P = (nR/V)T. If nR/T is constant, then P = T. That is proved out by the temperature/pressure gradient of our atmosphere due to gravity.

            If CO2 is 0.04% by mass, approximately, and N2/O2 is around 99% by mass, which gases will contribute the most to temperature?

            CO2, at 0.04% by mass, cannot possibly contribute any more than a few hundredths of a degree C.

            I don’t see how that reasoning can be refuted. The properties of CO2 ascribed to AGW will not change that ratio no matter how much heat is absorbed by CO2.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon wrote:
            “CO2, at 0.04% by mass, cannot possibly contribute any more than a few hundredths of a degree C.”

            Again, I’d like to see the calculation or chain of reasoning that gives this result.

            You ALWAYS ignore this question. I don’t think you have any science on this, and are just making up a lie again.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon wrote:
            “Ideal Gas LawPV = nRT, or P = (nR/V)T. If nR/T is constant, then P = T. That is proved out by the temperature/pressure gradient of our atmosphere due to gravity.”

            This is the stupidest thing you’ve written yet.

            WHY WOULD nR/T be constant?
            What about the volume variable.
            P=T?? They don’t even have the same units, dumbo.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          “Show me anything from Tyndall or Arrhenius where they lay out mathematically the sensitivity of the atmosphere to GHGs.”

          You completely ignore what others have written above, and lie time and time and time again.

          Don’t be so lazy — actually LOOK at Arrhenius’s paper, where he does exactly what you’re looking for:

          “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground,” Svante Arrhenius, Philosophical Magazine 1896(41): 237-76 (1896).
          http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

      • SkepticGoneWild says:

        Bin reads but does not comprehend. Just like he attributed a quote of Arrhenius to Fourier.

    • David Appell says:

      Gordon Robertson wrote:
      “At the time of the Industrial Era, the IPCC claimed a 270 ppmv concentration of CO2. Why did that level, which is much higher than the difference between then and 400 ppmv, not cause catastrophic warming and climate change? Same planet, same solar energy, same surface radiation.”

      Gordon, gordon, gordon….. you are truly lost.

      That 270 ppmv CO2 *did* cause climate change — part of the greenhouse effect.

      Without that CO2 the atmo’s water vapor content would have been much lower and the Earth probably in an snowball state.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”Without that CO2 the atmos water vapor content would have been much lower and the Earth probably in an snowball state”.

        With all the water vapour, the overall percentage of the atmosphere that is GHGs is around 0.3%. I can see WV warming certain locals a ‘little’ more but not the entire planet by 1C.

        Next you’ll be telling me the Arctic gets seriously cold in winter because there’s not enough WV in the air. Or that the Tropics are so hot because of the extra WV. What puts the extra WV in the air? It’s the solar energy burning it off the water.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          “With all the water vapour, the overall percentage of the atmosphere that is GHGs is around 0.3%. I can see WV warming certain locals a little more but not the entire planet by 1C.”

          What calculation leads you to that conclusion?

          Or are you just making things up again?

  27. Entropic man says:

    For the last two months the two satellite monthly temperatures have been well above the surface temperatures.

    Look at the first temperature anomaly graph here.

    https://moyhu.blogspot.co.uk/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html

    Now UAH has dropped back into sync.

    • Bindidon says:

      The troposphere doesn’t react to ENSO signals as fast as does the surface: there is mostly a 4 four month lag between them.

      • Entropic man says:

        Surface temperatures have been flat since June and the ENSO trend has been neutral trending into La Nina.

        I don’t see any increase four months ago for which the satellite jump ISA lagged response.

        I suggest that the jump is either atmosphere or instrument related.

        • Bindidon says:

          Nobody told that abrupt increases in satellite-based measurements of tropospheric temperatures must be related to ENSO.

          I mentioned exactly the inverse, namely that if the ENSO signal is going down but the tropospheric temperatures don’t yet, we should await the 4-month lag time to be sure that entering the new La Nina really becomes perceptible 5 km above.

          If that is not the case, then there is a non-negligible probability that ENSO isn’t stable enough to persistently enter its La Nina state.

        • barry says:

          EM, it’s well-known that there is a lag of several months between ENSO SSTs for large events and satellite global temp response. It’s not controversial. You’ll find skeptics and others agree on that much.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      entropic…”For the last two months the two satellite monthly temperatures have been well above the surface temperatures”.

      The sats have a far more comprehensive coverage of the planet (95% to 30%) and their telemetry is far more sensitive to atmospheric conditions than two a day averaged thermometer readings.

      You cannot trust surface data anymore. NOAA has taken to statistical methods in climate models to synthesize data and Had.crut has been suspect since their leader, Phil Jones, was front and centre in the Climategate email scandal interfering with peer review, blocking an FOI to get access to his data, and boasting about using Mike’s Trick to adjust temperatures in Had.crut data.

      Mike’s Trick is also called ‘hide the decline’. They used it in mbb98, the hockey stick, to show an abrupt warming when their proxy tree ring data was actually cooling. Who knows how many times Had.crut historical data was adjusted using that scientific misconduct.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon wrote:
        “Mikes Trick is also called hide the decline. They used it in mbb98, the hockey stick, to show an abrupt warming when their proxy tree ring data was actually cooling.”

        Wrongo.

        Certain high northern latitude tree ring proxies failed to report the known temperatures after about 1970.

        They declined, when the temperature readings showed an increase.

        That’s the “decline” Jones was talking about, and it was removed for sound scientific reasons.

      • David Appell says:

        You can read about the problem here, but since it would falsify your point of view I’m sure you’ll ignore it:

        “On the Divergence Problem in Northern Forests: A review of the
        tree-ring evidence and possible causes,” Rosanne D’Arrigo et al, Global and Planetary Change 60 (2008) 289305.
        http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~liepert/pdf/DArrigo_etal.pdf

  28. Bindidon says:

    Des on December 2, 2017 at 10:16 PM
    David Appell on December 2, 2017 at 11:10 PM

    Exceptionally, the Robertson troll was right where you answered – but only as far as volcanism dates are concerned.

    On may 18, 1980 St Helens erupted; form march to september 1982, El Chichon did. Last not least: between april and june 1991, the far more powerful Pinatubo came out.

    *

    But trolls like Robertson nevertheless keep trolls forever, because they
    – do not understand the real consequences of what they enumerate and wrongly add as a plus to their arguments;
    – discredit everybody showing these consequences whenever what s/he writes does not fit to their narrative.

    *

    1. What the Robertson (and many other) troll(s) do not understand is that if these eruptions had not taken place, an incredible amount of aerosols wouldn’t have reached the stratosphere, and the resulting cooling during years wouldn’t have existed, what would have resulted in much higher temperature anomalies, and that not only for UAH!

    So the linear trend estimate for satellite-based temperature measurements of course would have been lower, but not the warming visible everywhere else behind it!

    *

    2. What the Robertson (and many other) troll(s) ignore or, even worse, try to discredit without any reference to scientific contradiction, is that people for example analysed temperature time series, and extracted out of them the influence of events quoted natural, with as goal to obtain a residual free it.

    So did till 2013 for example a group of scientists around Benjamin Santer and Celine Bonfils with the TLT temperature series RSS3.3 (emphasis needed):

    https://dspace.mit.edu/openaccess-disseminate/1721.1/89054

    Let me zoom on the essential results of this rather long paper (the article behind paywall is about 6 pages long):

    http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170906/3s6xea9x.png

    Here we observe that after removal of unlagged ENSO and of volcano events, a residual RSS3.3 TLT trend for 1979-2013 of 0.086 C / decade remains, which has to be compared with the raw RSS trend at that time (0.124 C / decade, compared with today’s 0.135 C); thus the residual is about 70 %.

    Tamino aka Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf published in 2011 the results of similar work on GISS:

    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022/meta

    All that was subject of harsh attack on several skeptic blogs, especially at WUWT and Climate Etc; but nowhere was a scientifically valuable falsification ever presented.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”Exceptionally, the Robertson troll was right where you answered but only as far as volcanism dates are concerned”.

      You don’t know any more about trolls than you do basic science.

      A troll is someone on the Net who intentionally disrupts debate by agitating people on something like a blog dedicated to certain subjects. This blog was generously set up by Dr. Roy Spencer, a meteorologist and a member of the UAH team who does NOT subscribe to the views of extreme climate alarmists. Roy has declared his belief that anthropogenic gases are partly responsible for warming but he does not think it will amount to catastrophic warming.

      You are the dissident here and in your reply called me a troll. You are the troll, by definition. I am here because I agree with Roy and support his POV. You are not only attacking me, you are attacking Roy’s views and the good data sets put out by UAH, which have been awarded medals for excellence by NASA and the American Meteorological Society.

      Get a grip man, and realize that you are the outsider here and that your purpose is to agitate by providing misinformation while criticizing UAH.

      You are the troll!!

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”But trolls like Robertson nevertheless keep trolls forever, because they
      do not understand the real consequences of what they enumerate and wrongly add as a plus to their arguments;
      discredit everybody showing these consequences whenever what s/he writes does not fit to their narrative”.

      You are unable to debate on the facts so you resort to innuendo and ad homs. Here are the facts based on the UAH graph, on which Roy has superimposed a red running average:

      1)From 1979 to 1998, UAH data sets show an average below the baseline, where the baseline is the 1980 – 2010 global average. Right on the the graph it indicates volcanic activity and in the 30 year report UAH addresses that matter. Whereas the re-warming trend from 1979 – 1998 is around 0.12C/decade, UAH have tried to remove the cooling effect, producing a trend around 0.09C/decade.

      There is no proof that re-warming comes from anthropogenic sources even though both Roy and John Christy at UAH have acknowledge it’s likely anthropogeic gases are contributing. I don’t agree, I think the warming is due to a recovery from the Little Ice Age and other natural factors that science has not yet learned to detect. Furthermore the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is insufficient to contribute more than a few hundredths of a degree C.

      2)In late 1997, a major El Nino warming, not predicted by any climate model, drove the global average 0.8C beyond the baseline. Within a year, the global average was below the baseline briefly, then for some unknown reason it jumped about 0.2C around 2002.

      The average from 1998 – 2012 was acknowledged by the IPCC to show insignificant warming. They called it a warming hiatus. UAH shows that flat trend and extends it to 2015. Follow the red running average and visually average it. So, we’ve had 19 years of rewarming due volcanic aerosols followed by a flat trend for 15 years.

      UAH cannot offer a trend in two sections, they must follow the traditional statistical averaging of picking end points then drawing a best fit through the data. That’s normally done using an algorithm in a computer. It means nothing. In the physical world, we had 19 years of cooling followed by 15 years of a flat trend.

      The trend offered by UAH does not come with a note claiming the warming is due to anthropogenic causes. John Christy has stated that the climate is far too complex to be fully understand by modern climate scientists. I would go further, and claim climate modeling is a waste of time given that lack of understanding.

      3)It’s blatantly obvious that natural forces are driving our climate, like ENSO. Tsonis et al 2007 claimed other oscillation in the oceans like the AMO, PDO, and AO, are likely controlling warming/cooling. It’s very likely current Arctic warming is due to the AMO and AO. Warming in the Arctic is localized and moves around month to month, indicating a weather factor rather than climate.

      If you are going to do science, you need to empty your mind of your current bias and look at the facts. You are blinded to the overall science because you are myopically focused on your belief system.

      If you think the trend announced by UAH from 1979 represents anthropogenic warming, you are deluding yourself. There is simply insufficient proof.

      • ren says:

        ” Furthermore the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is insufficient to contribute more than a few hundredths of a degree C.”
        Exactly the point.

        • gammacrux says:

          You are as plain an idiot as the electronics technician.
          You don’t have a clue about physics in general and what CO2 does in atmosphere in particular.

          The amount of As as a dopant in highly doped Si semiconductor is still only 0.01 %,( even smaller than CO2 in atmosphere) and nevertheless changes its resistivity by 12 orders of magnitude and converts it into a metal.

          The kind of findings of modern science whose applications in computer technology permits even a dumbass to post ridiculous crackpottery in various blogs.

      • barry says:

        But not a point corroborated, and in fact at odds with the views of even scientists who are ‘skeptics’.

        This is a view held almost entirely by denizens of the skeptic blogosphere.

        Mind you, the sentence is so poorly constructed I could be mistaken in thinking it’s about the entire CO2 content. Lindzen, Spencer, Christy and any qualified ‘skeptic’ scientist is in agreement with the mainstream view that this concentration (with attendant water vapour and total GHG) accounts for abut 33K more surface temp than for an atmosphere without GHGs.

        When a countervailing view is pushed only in the blogosphere, it puts it on the same footing as Flat Earthery, 9/11 Truthers, and the moon landing “hoax.”

        • Richard M says:

          While GHGs are responsible for the atmosphere being 33K warmer it has very little to do with back radiation. It is the result of thermalization and the energy profile of gases in a gravitational field.

          • barry says:

            In physics, thermalisation (in American English thermalization) is the process of physical bodies reaching thermal equilibrium through mutual interaction.

          • gammacrux says:

            Funny variant of clown physics.
            More please.

          • Richard M says:

            Barry, when discussing the GHE the term thermalization is used to describe the process whereby GHGs absorb IR energy and then pass on that energy via collisions with other molecules in the atmosphere.

          • gammacrux says:

            thermalization is used to describe the process whereby GHGs absorb IR energy and then pass on that energy via collisions with other molecules in the atmosphere.

            And so what ?

            Of course IR absor-ption implies thermalization, physicists knew that long long long ( at least a century ) before any pretentious ignoramus shows up here or elsewhere and claims to
            reinvent the wheel.

            Schwarzschild’s radiation transfer equation used in standard GHE theory of course implies thermalization.

          • Kristian says:

            gammacrux says, December 5, 2017 at 2:10 AM:

            Of course IR absor-ption implies thermalization, physicists knew that long long long ( at least a century ) before any pretentious ignoramus shows up here or elsewhere and claims to
            reinvent the wheel.

            What is being continually said is that upward IR from the surface bound for space is captured by the “GHGs” in the atmosphere and then rather reemitted in all directions, the result of which is that ~398 W/m^2 leave the surface, but only ~240 W/m^2 manage to reach space. And that THIS is the “GHE”.

            Is this, according to your understanding, gammacrux, a correct physical description of what is actually happening in the Earth system?

          • barry says:

            Barry, when discussing the GHE the term thermalization is used to describe the process whereby GHGs absorb IR energy and then pass on that energy via collisions with other molecules in the atmosphere.

            Ah, a special usage for the term when discussing the GHE. I’ve seen this usage promulgated by skeptics. Seems to be a purloining of the term for some purpose or other. Wonder what that could be?

            If more GHGs absorb more upward radiation, then pass on that energy via collision, that means the atmosphere becomes more energetic, thereby radiating more radiation.

            Which goes in every direction including groundward.

            More ‘backradiation’ from the atmosphere. ‘Thermalization’ does not obviate this consequence.

          • gammacrux says:

            Is this, according to your understanding, gammacrux, a correct physical description of what is actually happening in the Earth system?

            Yes it is, Kristian.

            I can’t see where this might be incorrect in any respect.

            When one says that upward IR emitted from ground or ocean surface is absorbed by GHG’s in troposphere and then reemitted in all directions this does of course not mean that a given molecule of CO2 or H2O captures a given incident IR photon and subsequently merely reemits it in a different direction ! More precisely only a negligibly very tiny fraction manages to do so.

            This is so obvious for any trained physicist that (s)he doesn’t feel compelled to state it explicitly.

            From a very general point of view in not too dilute gases such as our troposphere or of course in condensed matter when radiation is absorbed it is usually converted into heat. This conversion simply implies thermalization and conversely. It’s quite the same thing, namely in present context that the excited state of a CO2 molecule has a lifetime that far exceeds (about a 1000 times) the average time between collisions of that molecule with an another one. As a consequence collisions prevail over IR reemission and the photon excitation is almost always redistributed among all molecules and degrees of freedom, in particular in the form of the molecules’s translation kinetic energy in the gas before it has any chance to be reemitted as IR by the very molecule that absorbed it. By the way this is the fundamental mechanism that ensures that a meaningful concept of local temperature indeed describe the gas.
            Now these collisions also ensure the reverse process and every now and then excite vibration-rotational states of any given N2, O2 or CO2 etc molecule and thus convert for instance kinetic translation energy of an 02 molecule into a vibrationally excited N2, CO2 or H2O molecules. In the case of excited CO2 and H2O dipolar emission is allowed and there is a tiny but nevertheless finite chance that deexcitation occurs via IR photon emission rather than a subsequent collision. As pointed out above the probability is small but if there are many such excited molecules some indeed manage to emit IR and this happens if the gas temperature is high enough. The higher the temperature, the more excited molecules exist and potentially emit. Thus IR emission of the gas increases and that’s what’s behind Planck’s thermal emission law.

            Finally let’s however note that while the rule is thermalization of absorbed radiation it does of course not always take place. Photosynthesis is an example where the photon energy ends up in the form of chemical free energy ( in a sugar or fat biomolecule) rather than merely heating the absorbing material, chlorophyl.

          • gammacrux says:

            May I add that in the process of thermalization:

            -The direct process, where incident radiation is converted into heat by collisions of IR excited CO2 molecules with other molecules in gas, is essentially independant of gas temperature. Whatever its temperature this “heats” the gas and tends to increase it’s temperature.

            -The reverse process, where collisions convert kinetic energy go gas molecules into excited CO2 molecules, is, in contrast, highly temperature dependent because if molecules are not fast enough they can hardly excite any CO2 vibrations. Emission increases rapidly with temperature as shown by Planck’s law.

            In steady state there must thus exist a temperature where the direct and reverse processes compensate each other exactly and emission=absor-ption. That’s radiative equilibrium.
            And since incident radiation is from below only and emission is in all directions this atmospheric temperature must be lower than ground temperature.

          • gammacrux says:

            Hopefully the above explanations should make it clear that while the IR emitted by earth surface is indeed absorbed by atmosphere and thermalized it is only “reemitted’ once the atmophere’s temperature is high enough so that emission = absorp-tion.
            Otherwise it heats the atmosphere until emission matches absor-ption again and that happens with a sudden increase in CO2. And more emission = more back radiation which heats the surface and thus converges to an enhanced GHE.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Well dang, gummy. I thought you were doing pretty good until the very last, where you blew it.

            “And more emission = more back radiation which heats the surface and thus converges to an enhanced GHE.”

            The atmosphere does not heat the surface, except in isolated weather instances.

          • gammacrux says:

            Thanks g*r*u*m*p*y.

            I love when you pretend you grasp what I explain.

            Hilarious.

          • Kristian says:

            gammacrux says, December 5, 2017 at 8:11 AM:

            “Is this, according to your understanding, gammacrux, a correct physical description of what is actually happening in the Earth system?”

            Yes it is, Kristian.

            I can’t see where this might be incorrect in any respect.

            Funny. Let’s follow your reasoning, then.

            When one says that upward IR emitted from ground or ocean surface is absorbed by GHG’s in troposphere and then reemitted in all directions this does of course not mean that a given molecule of CO2 or H2O captures a given incident IR photon and subsequently merely reemits it in a different direction ! More precisely only a negligibly very tiny fraction manages to do so.

            This is so obvious for any trained physicist that (s)he doesn’t feel compelled to state it explicitly.

            Well, they should. Because most all laypeople reading the junk they actually write naturally end up thinking this is precisely what happens.

            From a very general point of view in not too dilute gases such as our troposphere or of course in condensed matter when radiation is absorbed it is usually converted into heat.

            No. No! NO!!! It is NOT “converted into heat”. Heat is a thermal transfer of energy by virtue of a temperature difference, spontaneously always from hot to cold. Heat [Q] is thus NEVER CONTAINED within a thermodynamic system. What you’re referring to is the kinetic (translational) portion of the internal energy of the gas [U].

            Please get those physical terms and definitions right, otherwise we can never reach any sort of proper agreement on this topic.

            This conversion simply implies thermalization and conversely. It’s quite the same thing, namely in present context that the excited state of a CO2 molecule has a lifetime that far exceeds (about a 1000 times) the average time between collisions of that molecule with an another one. As a consequence collisions prevail over IR reemission and the photon excitation is almost always redistributed among all molecules and degrees of freedom, in particular in the form of the molecules’s translation kinetic energy in the gas before it has any chance to be reemitted as IR by the very molecule that absorbed it. By the way this is the fundamental mechanism that ensures that a meaningful concept of local temperature indeed describe the gas.

            Much better. However, it seems you’ve forgotten to point out an all-important point:

            What specific “radiation” from the surface to the atmosphere is it that warms the latter and helps sustain its temperature?

            Now these collisions also ensure the reverse process and every now and then excite vibration-rotational states of any given N2, O2 or CO2 etc molecule and thus convert for instance kinetic translation energy of an 02 molecule into a vibrationally excited N2, CO2 or H2O molecules. In the case of excited CO2 and H2O dipolar emission is allowed and there is a tiny but nevertheless finite chance that deexcitation occurs via IR photon emission rather than a subsequent collision. As pointed out above the probability is small but if there are many such excited molecules some indeed manage to emit IR and this happens if the gas temperature is high enough. The higher the temperature, the more excited molecules exist and potentially emit. Thus IR emission of the gas increases and that’s what’s behind Planck’s thermal emission law.

            Mmm, well, yes. When a body (or a gas) is warmer, it simply produces more thermal photons. There is thus a higher density of thermal radiative energy, and a higher average radiative intensity, associated with that body (or gas) – its photon gas/cloud is ‘thicker’ and more energetic.

            gammacrux says, December 5, 2017 at 8:57 AM:

            -The direct process, where incident radiation is converted into heat by collisions of IR excited CO2 molecules with other molecules in gas, is essentially independant of gas temperature. Whatever its temperature this “heats” the gas and tends to increase it’s temperature.

            Two things here, gammacrux:

            1) Incident radiation is NEVER converted into ‘heat’ inside the body absorbing it. It’s converted into ‘internal energy’.

            2) What specific “incident radiation” increases a body’s U and T?

            Please answer this question. It is crucial to this whole matter.

            In steady state there must thus exist a temperature where the direct and reverse processes compensate each other exactly and emission=absor-ption. That’s radiative equilibrium. And since incident radiation is from below only and emission is in all directions this atmospheric temperature must be lower than ground temperature.

            No, gammacrux. It appears you are confused indeed. This is not how the real world works. You see an effect of temperature and interpret it as a cause of temperature. You’re fixated on the atmospheric slab-layer models of the “GHE”, all based on the assumption that the atmosphere’s insulation effect on the solar-heated surface is radiatively driven rather than thermally (massively).

            You’re also mixing up two fundamentally different aspects of reality; the MICROscopic one (the quantum mechanical realm) and the MACROscopic one (the thermodynamic realm). How? Well, first you say that the “incident radiation is from below only”, which means that here you’re not talking about photons (microscopic entities), but a radiative flux (a macroscopic entity). Then you say that “emission is in all directions”, which is to say that here you’ve all of a sudden turned it all on its head, now specifically referring to photons rather than a radiative flux.

            gammacrux, you need to be consistent:

            In the MICRO realm, emitted AND absorbed radiation (photons) are BOTH omnidirectional.

            In the MACRO realm, however, emitted AND absorbed radiation (radiative fluxes) are both UNIdirectional – from warmer to cooler.

            You can’t just pick and choose according to your own liking what level of observation to apply when describing thermal radiation.

            Again back to the question above:

            What radiation flux from the surface is it that actually warms the atmosphere? And what radiation flux is it that moves from the atmosphere to space?

            These are both distinctly THERMODYNAMIC questions, and therefore both require distinctly thermodynamic answers.

            gammacrux says, December 5, 2017 at 9:59 AM:

            Hopefully the above explanations should make it clear that while the IR emitted by earth surface is indeed absorbed by atmosphere and thermalized it is only “reemitted’ once the atmophere’s temperature is high enough so that emission = absorp-tion.

            No, this isn’t ‘clear’. Because it’s not relevant to what actually happens. The atmosphere simply radiates according to its overall temperature, which has no direct connection to the radiative energy transferred to it from the surface.

            Otherwise it heats the atmosphere until emission matches absor-ption again and that happens with a sudden increase in CO2. And more emission = more back radiation which heats the surface and thus converges to an enhanced GHE.

            So, “back radiation” from the cooler atmosphere now HEATS the already warmer surface? gammacrux (*shaking head in disbelief*). I was hoping you at least knew the basics of this subject. Didn’t you say you’re teaching graduate students?

            Either way, nope. This is all just assumed drivel based purely on model results. We’ve got plenty of actual observations from the real Earth system showing that this effect (+CO2 => +DWLWIR => +T) isn’t a functionable one. It’s THEORETICALLY sound, but EMPIRICALLY shown to be invalid.

          • gammacrux says:

            Didnt you say youre teaching graduate students?

            Sure and by the way I even published about 150 peer reviewed papers in physics…

            So funny.

          • gammacrux says:

            Just one more thing, Kristian.

            In contrast to many others here you might be someone who really attempts to understand physics. Yet you get lost in your vain, fruitless and, sorry, ridiculous semantic bickerings.
            Understanding physics in not knowing words.

            The use of the word heat is a typical example. It is used in the sense I did use it above quite routinely by us, professional physicists. It’s not only used in the thermodynamic sense of spontaneous energy transfer from hot to cold as you seem erroneously to believe.

            Nothing wrong with that whether you like it or not, just standard language of physicists.

            And believe it or not we knew perfectly well that it’s also internal energy long before a Kristian ever became aware of that.

            Thus I’m sorry, I have definitely nothing at all to add to or change in what I explained above. The physics is perfectly clear.

          • Kristian says:

            gammacrux says, December 7, 2017 at 3:07 AM:

            “Didnt you say youre teaching graduate students?”

            Sure and by the way I even published about 150 peer reviewed papers in physics…

            So funny.

            Yeah, that is pretty funny (or tragic, however you choose to see it), considering you just showed us all what an utter ignoramus you are regarding the most basic of thermodynamic principles.

          • Kristian says:

            gammacrux says, December 7, 2017 at 6:27 AM:

            Just one more thing, Kristian. [Followed by “blah-blah-blah-blah” …]

            Stop pretending to be something you’re not, ignoramus, blathering on about your alleged scientific excellence. And rather start producing actual arguments that aren’t rooted in toy models.

            Here’s what you said, dimwit:

            And more emission = more back radiation which heats the surface and thus converges to an enhanced GHE.

            Nowhere is this correct physics. It’s an unintended exposure of pure ignorance.

          • gammacrux says:

            …, dimwit:

            And Kristian, once again, flew in a terrible rage…

          • Kristian says:

            gammacrux says, December 8, 2017 at 2:17 AM:

            And Kristian, once again, flew in a terrible rage…

            And once again, gammacrux, the arrogant, condescending dimwit, scurried back to his dank hole.

            dimwit gammacrux: “More back radiation HEATS the surface!”

            Hahahahaha!

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson wrote:
        “Furthermore the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is insufficient to contribute more than a few hundredths of a degree C.”

        What calculation or chain of reasoning leads to this conclusion.

        I bet you don’t have one, and are, as usual, just making sh!t up.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…you need to get real with the people you quote. Santer is an uber-alarmist as is Tamino, Foster, and Rahmstorf. These people are behind the blatant propaganda about AGW.

      You have the UAH data on this blog from two scientists, Roy and John Christy, who have proved to have integrity and who have been awarded medals for excellence by NASA and the American Meteorological Society for their work.

      You come on this blog, like the troll you are, and try to insult the intelligence of these two good scientists with your references to politically-driven, politically correct yes-men. You even tried to prove UAH wrong using data from the disgraced NOAA, who are currently being investigated for climate fraud by a US government panel.

      Rahmstorf was schooled by Richard Lindzen when he had the audacity to seek Lindzen out for a debate. During the debate, when he could not answer Lindzen he went of on a rant of metaphysical nonsense.

      Rahmstorf resorted to the typical alarmist ploy of claiming natural events like ENSO were masking anthropogenic warming. He claimed that the inability of climate models to recreate historical temperatures given the data should not affect our confidence in them.

      Rahmstorf thinks climate sensitivity to anthropogenic gases can be measured directly. Then he went on a rant about the comparison between climate science and general relativity.

      https://motls.blogspot.ca/2008/03/lindzen-vs-rahmstorf-exchange.html

      That’s just Rahmstorf. Santer has other issues related to the blindness inherent in climate alarm. Tamino, of course, is a legend in his own mind. Actually, he’s a smarter version of you.

  29. ren says:

    “The arctic express will not stop after it plunges into the Midwest early this week. The cold will continue to expand eastward through the week, dramatically slashing temperatures, even down to the Florida Peninsula.
    Once the cold settles in, highs will be 20-30 degrees Fahrenheit lower when compared to early this week.”
    https://accuweather.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/61fd06c/2147483647/resize/590x/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faccuweather-bsp.s3.amazonaws.com%2F26%2Fa4%2F06cee355458f8657f13edef1a639%2Ffront-dec-3.jpg

  30. ren says:

    Outdoor temperature is a major determinant of the observed seasonal fluctuations in blood pressure, with higher and lower blood pressure in winter and summer, respectively, said Dr. Ragavendra Baliga, a cardiologist at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center.
    Low environmental temperature is strongly associated with increased hospital admissions for acute heart attacks, stroke and higher cardiovascular mortality, Baliga added.
    How much blood pressure increases in cold weather depends on variables including the current temperature, wind chill, how long a person is exposed to colder weather and the persons health, according to researchers from the University of Florida.”

  31. professorP says:

    What is amazing is that the average temperature over the past 22 months is the highest in the record.
    And most of that time we have experienced La Nina conditions!
    Imagine what will happen when the next El Nino strikes!

    • Krakatoa says:

      True. It’s weird that a lot of people on this site completely ignore these La Nina conditions, but they do focus on that short period with a bit higher ONI values, which was by no means a true El Nino. 2017 was a very warm year.

    • Richard M says:

      Except it wasn’t really a true La Nina. There was no Bjerknes feedback after the previous El Nino. This allowed much of the warmed El Nino waters to drift just off the +5 to -5 boundary as reported by NOAA.

      Also, the Nino 1-2 area never really cooled. At the supposed peak of the La Nina with Nino 3.4 at about -.6 the Nino 1-2 area was almost +2. And it was positive for the entire La Nina.

      Hence, there was plenty of warm water around to drive up the GAST.

      Science is hard. Just looking at some index value is easy if all you want to do is confirm your bias. To actually understand what is happening takes a little more work.

      • barry says:

        Nino is defined by all except MEI as the SSTs of a given NINO region (NINO3.4, usually – only JMA uses NINO3 region) at a certain threshold over a certain number of months. The katter 2 are variable. There’s no requirement that other NINO regions have to match sign. And often enough they do not during ENSO events.

        EG, for the very strong la Nina from (roughly) Aug 2007 to May 2008, NINO1+2 was positive for 4 of those 10 months, and went positive just as NINO3.4 SSTs hit the coldest month of that la Nina (Feb 2008).

        http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/sstoi.indices

        There’s enough variation in ENSO monitoring and classification across different institutes that one should be leery of touting any particular metric or set of metrics as the *truth*.

        A bad habit in the climate blogosphere is to approach ENSO data as deterministic. ENSO indices are estimates, and are not uniform in how they are constructed and interpreted by the various groups that publish and assess them.

        • professorP says:

          I stated that (over the past 22 months):
          “.we have experienced La Nina conditions”.

          The MEI only went negative in 8 of the 22 months.
          The SOI only went positive in 8 of the 22 months.

          i.e. 14 out of 22 months were on the La Nina side of neutral.
          All-right – I should have said “La Nina-ish conditions”.

          Still, the UAH average value over this period was a record.
          Amazing!

        • barry says:

          Another note of caution: global temps do not correlate well to small deviations from ENSO neutral, but they do correlate with significant events.

          With so much talk of Ninos and Ninas over the last couple of years, some people have got it into their heads that every fluctuation of NINO SSTs should have a matched global response. That just isn’t the case. It’s only the large events where we can expect correlation.

        • Richard M says:

          The point is with Bjerknes feedback we normally see Nino 1-2 get cool first and then progress into the Nino 3-4 areas. This did not happen in 2016-17. It is this process that pushes much of the warm left over El Nino waters back into the PWP. This did not happen and instead of lot of it drifted north of the equatorial Nino defined areas but still persisted over a large area.

          As such no one should have expected to see the cooling that generally comes with a La Nina. In fact, the rainy season in CA was in part due to having a lot of let over warm water from which to draw moisture. With Bjerknes feedback you don’t usually have that.

          We are now seeing the first true La Nina setting up. Nino 1-2 is already at -1.34 (Oct) and it never went negative in 2016.

          Yes, there are “standard” ways that El Nino and La Nina are defined. However, not all of ENSO events are the same and their impacts on the global temperature (including lags) will also be different. This can lead to confusion as is seen in the comment from professorP.

          • barry says:

            There are times in the last 70 years when 1+2 got cool, then 3.4 followed, and a la Nina didn’t ensue. 1952, 1959, 1967 are examples, similar in progression to what has happened in the last few months. There have been a few false starts based on your view there.

            Best not to count the chickens before they’re hatched. La Nina looks likely, but it’s not a lock yet.

            There are standard ‘ways’ that ENSO events are defined, but they are not uniform. NINO 1+2 progression is not part of those standards. Looks like this is your idea.

          • David Appell says:

            Richard: ENSOs are natural variations. So are the AMO, PDO, etc. So they say little about manmade forcings.

            But maybe you can explain why El Nino years keep getting warmer.
            Same for La Nina years, and
            for neutral years.

            Why don’t you take a crack at it….

          • Richard M says:

            Barry, NOAA only has good data on the Nino regions starting in 1982.

            http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/sstoi.indices

          • Richard M says:

            David, I already did that above. It seems you either skip over comments or have a very poor memory.

            We are now at the peak of the AMO cycle’s impact on GAST. I realize you are in denial of natural climate factors. As such it will be impossible to hold a scientific discussion with you.

          • barry says:

            Richard,

            NOAA’s ENSO page has data from 1950. The MEI index has data from the previous century, but also starts in 1950 for their main index as that is what they deem is sound enough data.

            The 3.4 region monthly data used for their public ENSO page is:

            http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/detrend.nino34.ascii.txt

            They also have a dataset based on ERSSv5 for all Nino regions since 1950.

            http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/ersst5.nino.mth.81-10.ascii

          • Richard M says:

            Barry, it is clear that NOAA doesn’t believe the data is good enough to extract it and place it on the page I referenced. I wish there was good data further back in time. I think having good data back into the 1920s would be very interesting.

    • David Appell says:

      El Nino years, La Nina years and neutral years keep getting warmer and warmer. But no deniers on this site what to discuss that, let alone explain it.

  32. ren says:

    Asymmetric distribution of ozone in the stratosphere indicates a weak polar vortex.
    http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00950/7pmdqp70xqfv.png

  33. barry says:

    Gordon,

    I pointed anyone interested to the NOAA website where they admitted to slashing over 75% of the surface data they receive. I have yet to see the debunking you claim.

    I have provided it numerous times (about 20) specifically for you, and you have never dealt with it. I now consider you to by lying about this.

    NOAA did not say they had “slashed”, removed or cut the data. This is entirely your invention.

    Chiefio, who you have cited on this, says specifically that he did not claim that NOAA deleted data. I’ve quoted that for you, and you’ve responded to it by backtracking – but keep coming back with the same old LIE.

    NNOAA did not have the data to slash. For the umpteenth time, they retrospectively added data that is not available to them electronically – millions of hand-written records. This project finished at the end of the 1990s, even while NOAA was still receiving the data from 1500 weather stations via the automated process.

    THEY DID NOT SLASH, CUT, REMOVE OR DELETE ANY DATA.

    You. Are. A. Liar.

    • Des says:

      I second that. And a Trump-style liar at that.

    • Bindidon says:

      barry

      It makes few sense to answer to the Robertson troll. Feel free to let him repeat his lies and nonsense.

      I have tried long time ago to explain him the same, to show him where he is wrong, to open his eyes on new stuff like the giant GHCN V4 daily record (about 100,000 stations), to show him what is the exact consequence of removing 75 % of the GHCN V3 stations by allowing only one of them per UAH grid cell (70,000 km2) to contribute to the time series, etc etc.

      He is a troll insulting other commenters, calling me an ‘idiot’, other people ‘ignorant’ or ‘dumb ass’. He insults scientists he doesn’t grasp the work of, propagates ultraskeptic blogosphere lies, etc etc.

      Never and never would he be able to do simplest tasks like e.g. constructing charts out of publicly available time series, nor a fortiori to compare various data sets that way.

      We all should ignore him. I will now go on the next step in that direction, by not only stopping to directly reply to his comments, but also by stopping to indirectly comment them.

      • barry says:

        Mostly I do ignore him. But this lie of his is intolerable. He accuses NOAA of cutting records, when instead they went to a painstaking effort to add them. They did the exact opposite of what he continually slanders them for. He will continue to be called out on this lie as long as he promulgates it. It’s the lowest of all his bollocks.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          barry…”Mostly I do ignore him. But this lie of his is intolerable. He accuses NOAA of cutting records, when instead they went to a painstaking effort to add them”.

          You are terminally naive, barry. I posted a link directly to NOAA where they admitted to slashing their database by 75%. On the site of chiefio, he gives further evidence that NOAA has slashed reporting stations around the planet by up to 90% since the 1990s.

          If someone offers you kool-aid at a climate gathering, please don’t take it.

          I have met people like you in the past and all I can do is shake my head at your gullibility. Why do you think Lamar Smith is hot after NOAA? He wants to know why they amended the historical temperature records, what data they used, and their methodology. They refuse to cooperate.

          Why??? Why would a major scientific organization, when ordered by their bosses to release data and methodology, outright refuse to cooperate?

          • David Appell says:

            You are a serial liar, again and again and again and again.

            And that’s not a Canadian trait, from all the Canadians I’ve known.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon wrote:
            “Why??? Why would a major scientific organization, when ordered by their bosses to release data and methodology, outright refuse to cooperate?”

            Because Jones knew that McIntyre’s purpose wasn’t scientific. And he was right.

          • David Appell says:

            And Jones didn’t have permission to release it all.

            Some people honor contracts.

          • barry says:

            You are terminally naive, barry. I posted a link directly to NOAA where they admitted to slashing their database by 75%

            “Slashing” = cutting, deleting, removing.

            Let’s quote that link, shall we?

            “Q. Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?

            The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time.

            However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions. The 1,500 real-time stations that we rely on today are in locations where NOAA scientists can access information on the 8th of each month.”

            Where does it say they deliberately deleted anything?

            Nowhere. The 1500 reporting stations remained relatively constant through the 1990s.

            The additional data comes as they said – from digitizing historical books.

            They ADDED data THAT WAS NOT PART OF THEIR AUTOMATICALLY UPDATED STREAM.

            THAT’S why there are data for 6,000 stations before 1997.

            When they finished the mid-1990s project, they had 5 times the data that they did in 1991, and….

            THOSE WEATHER STATIONS AROUND THE WORLD DO NOT SEND DATA TO NOAA EACH MONTH OR AT ANY TIME. THEY ARE NOT PART OF THE AUTOMATED DATA STREAM. MANY ARE NO LONGER OPERATIONAL.

            This has been explained to you more than 20 times.

            You. Are. A Liar.

            Or the most stupid person I’ve ever encountered on the climate blogs, and that is saying something.

      • barry says:

        Happy to ignore everything else he writes.

        • Bindidon says:

          Well to be honest, barry: ignoring a person by stopping to react on her/him does not mean for me to ignore what s/he writes.

          Here is a typical example of how the troll manipulates this thread:

          http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-274472

          You failed to mention that Craig Bohren is an AGW skeptic. He claimed in one of his books that the heat trapping/blanket effect of GHGs is at worst, plain silly, and he has dismissed the back-radiation theory as simply a model.

          If I wouldn’t read that stuff I couldn’t compare it with Bohren’s personal meaning I recently collected here

          http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-274203

          and identify the troll’s output as an intentional misinterpretation of Bohren’s experience:

          Carbon dioxide is an infrared-active gas (I hate the term “greenhouse gas”), and hence all else being equal (an important qualification) we expect more downward infrared radiation (and a heating effect) from the atmosphere with an increase in carbon dioxide.

          • gbaikie says:

            “However the climate changes, it is likely that some regions of the planet will gain, others will lose.”

            That’s interesting topic. I can think of regions which could gain, but lack any specifics about regions which would lose.

            Let’s try Africa which is warmest continent.
            It seems to me, global warming could cause the Sahara desert to green. And would count that as being a gain. Unless a lot people like idea of a vast desert regions.

            Or any change could be viewed as unwelcomed.
            And one could say a general characteristic
            of having the veiw of any change being viewed as
            unwelcomed broadly fits the definition of being
            conservative.
            And one could say most of world population,
            tends to view any change as unwelcome- because
            one gets unknowable dangers associated with any change.

          • barry says:

            Thats interesting topic. I can think of regions which could gain, but lack any specifics about regions which would lose.

            You can imagine gains, but for losses you need ‘specifics’? Seems a bit skewed to me.

            A typical projection of losses comes from sea level rise which overwhelms near-coast agriculture (Mekong Delta for example), depleting staples like rice, causing economic hardship, migration inland and overcrowding. Another one is the loss of potable water from glaciers, which in general (85% of global glaciers) have been receding.

            Our civilizations have flourished (mostly) under stable relatively climate conditions. If weather patterns change under global warming this could deplete agriculture and water in some areas, and of course cause gains in others. As we are no longer nomadic, but locked into nation states with millions of people, the potential harm is to many for regions that experience losses.

            In a warming world, it is generally projected that wet regions will get wetter and dry regions will get drier.

          • gbaikie says:

            ” barry says:
            December 4, 2017 at 4:39 PM

            That’s interesting topic. I can think of regions which could gain, but lack any specifics about regions which would lose.

            You can imagine gains, but for losses you need specifics? Seems a bit skewed to me.

            A typical projection of losses comes from sea level rise which overwhelms near-coast agriculture (Mekong Delta for example)”

            Apparently there is good news:
            Chinese scientists develop rice that can grow in seawater, potentially creating enough food for 200 million people
            Tuesday 24 October 2017
            http://www.independent.co.uk/news/rice-seawater-chinese-scientists-food-200-million-a8017971.html

            https://www.rt.com/business/407629-china-rice-grow-salt-water/
            https://futurism.com/china-developing-rice-grows-saltwater/
            Its still only maybe 10 percent the level of salt in sea water, Assistant Director General for Agriculture at the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UN FAO) Ren Wang told Business Insider, so the salt-proof rice does have a long way to go before it could help ordinary farmers.”

            And:
            According to recent data, salinity intrusion has increased the salt content of water in the deltas intricate system of rivers and irrigation canals. Salinity (4g/l) expanded through the Tien and Hau Rivers by up to 45- 65 km and 55-60 km, respectively, considered to be the most extensive salinity intrusion in the last 90 years”
            http://www.mekongcommons.org/salinity-intrudes-mekong-delta-farmers-lose-yields-income/

            I think sea water is 33g/1 or seems guy who invented new rice, knew what he was doing. The Assistant Director General- not so much.

          • David Appell says:

            Sea level rise isn’t about developing rice that can grow in sea water. It’s about the inundation of many great cities on the coasts, and hundreds of millions of people have to abandon their property.

            Who will compensate them for that?

            You, me, and all other taxpayers around the world.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie, explain to us “Archimedes Principle”.

            THAT should be a hoot!

          • gbaikie says:

            ” David Appell says:
            December 4, 2017 at 6:27 PM

            Sea level rise isnt about developing rice that can grow in sea water. ”

            Barry had a concern about:
            “….overwhelms near-coast agriculture (Mekong Delta for example), depleting staples like rice, causing economic hardship, migration inland and overcrowding. ”

            Mekong Delta is at sea level. As it’s name suggests it’s on river delta. River delta’s will sink if river is dammed, but if not dammed one will get floods at the delta. Or New Orleans has same problem as do many settlements on deltas [at sea level and delta is restricted from growing, and therefore sinks.

          • David Appell says:

            There will be plenty of new places to plant rice.

          • David Appell says:

            “It seems to me, global warming could cause the Sahara desert to green.”

            Why? It’s only getting hotter.

            From all the science I’ve read, warming counteracts any CO2 fertilization.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Its about the inundation of many great cities on the coasts, and hundreds of millions of people have to abandon their property”.

            Any evidence that is happening? You keep bugging Salvatore about his projections and ignore empty projections of rising sea levels since 1988.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “Any evidence that is happening?”

            Of course. In the US alone, see Miami, Norfolk VA and Olympia WA.

            They know sea level is rising. We all do — at least, the nonliars here do.

            It’s up to 4 cm/decade now. And there’s no reason it’s going to stop here.

          • David Appell says:

            Read Jeff Goodell’s new book. By now it might even have been translated into Canadian.

          • gbaikie says:

            –David Appell says:
            December 4, 2017 at 8:40 PM

            It seems to me, global warming could cause the Sahara desert to green.

            Why? Its only getting hotter.

            From all the science Ive read, warming counteracts any CO2 fertilization.–

            “Future climate warming could lead to a re-greening of the southernmost Sahara (Sahel), with decreased dust emissions and changes in land cover. In a recent study, researchers at the Department of Meteorology at Stockholm University..”
            https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170608073356.htm

            “Emerging evidence is painting a very different scenario, one in which rising temperatures could benefit millions of Africans in the driest parts of the continent.
            Scientists are now seeing signals that the Sahara desert and surrounding regions are greening due to increasing rainfall.

            If sustained, these rains could revitalize drought-ravaged regions, reclaiming them for farming communities. ”
            https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html

          • barry says:

            gbakie,

            So you googled to rebut, and found news that is only one month old that a strain of rice (6 times more expensive than ordinary rice) may be grown in seawater.

            I see the pattern already.

            Whatever I mention as a loss you will suddenly become industrious about specifics and say “no problem,” without looking too deeply at viability, cost or anything else.

            You will maybe research something on glaciers and water sources, and possibly come up with the brilliant observation that dams can replace them (which cost money).

            But you are content to imagine good news scenarios without too much investigation.

            You are a climate Pollyanna – the opposite of alarmists, and just as skewed. Predilection, not objectivity, fuels your interest. And so I am better informed about how to receive your opinion.

          • gbaikie says:

            — barry says:
            December 5, 2017 at 5:05 AM

            gbaikie,

            So you googled to rebut, and found news that is only one month old that a strain of rice (6 times more expensive than ordinary rice) may be grown in seawater.

            I see the pattern already.

            Whatever I mention as a loss you will suddenly become industrious about specifics and say no problem, without looking too deeply at viability, cost or anything else.—

            Nope.
            You answered my question, and I checked it out.
            I knew already that people have been working on making salt resistance rice for quite a while. So I wondering if there was any recent news about it. And there was.
            I also expect continued development on making salt resistant rice and as general rule, I expect newly developed products- whether smart phones, drugs, or rice to be more expensive.
            Simple fact is if rice seed is worth 6 times more than normal rice seed, farmers will buy it. And if there actually significant need for that rice, more buy it, and if their is competitive market, the price of salt resistant rice will lower. Just like smart phones.
            Probably most important aspect of this particular salt resistant rice is, does it taste good.
            The other factor is the old lefty campaign against genetically altered food. As now, some people had religious beliefs which opposed their use [they don’t even want other people using them- crazy- though I guess normal for religious fanatics].

          • barry says:

            You answered my question, and I checked it out.

            Yes, that’s what I said. I mention a loss you will look for a way to rebut it.

            But you won’t do the due diligence for the good news stories. You won’t for example, ‘check out’ the greening of the Sahara to see how that works in the future.

            You also weren’t very thorough with the first one. The Mekong is only one place where habitation and agriculture is within a few centimetres of sea level.

            The game to be played is obvious, and so have a nice day.

          • gbaikie says:

            ” barry says:
            December 5, 2017 at 2:40 PM

            You answered my question, and I checked it out.

            Yes, thats what I said. I mention a loss you will look for a way to rebut it.

            But you wont do the due diligence for the good news stories. You wont for example, check out the greening of the Sahara to see how that works in the future.”

            I don’t don’t think Sahara desert will green anytime soon due to warmer temperatures. It may green a bit due to enriched CO2 making plants survive drier conditions.

            But were the alarmist 1/2 right about their ideas of future global warming, than Sahara would be green soon. It should have already happened if imagine we could presently at warmest at the present time [rather than being knowledgeable that we are simply recovering from a very cool period of recent history called the Little Ice Age]. And have come anything close to average global temperatures of when the Sahara desert was grassland- or in terms of last 10 million years the Sahara was mostly permanent region with grassland, rather than spending most of the time being desert for last +2 million years.

            -You will maybe research something on glaciers and water sources, and possibly come up with the brilliant observation that dams can replace them (which cost money).-

            They may cost money but dams can make money, providing high pressure water and provide electrical power.
            Now, one prefer a wasteland of ice, so a few tourists can wander thru it, but dammed lakes have many benefits- including tourism.
            Or basically if glaciers disappear, then one has land which has more value- it can have many uses- including greater access to other glaciers which haven’t melted, so that a few tourist can wander about in them.

            But mostly likely the glacier will not melt enough to open this kind of opportunity- any time soon. Just like its unlike the arctic ocean will be become ice free in the summer, anytime soon [and open up vast areas which can used by humans. Or more area of Canada can be used for farming, and etc.

            –But you are content to imagine good news scenarios without too much investigation.

            You are a climate Pollyanna the opposite of alarmists, and just as skewed. Predilection, not objectivity, fuels your interest. And so I am better informed about how to receive your opinion.–

            Well you could call me a progressive, but Lefties are midway through a process of completely polluting the word, just like they trashed the word “liberal” and as herd of wildebeests, after depleting the word progressive of any sensible meaning, predictably, they will move on to some greener region.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          binny…”You failed to mention that Craig Bohren is an AGW skeptic”.

          Do you have a problem with that, it came straight from Craig Bohren? I hate to see alarmists like you quoting him and trying to pass him of as other than a skeptic.

          Craig Bohren is an honest man and a good scientist. He is also a climate change skeptic.

          https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2006-08-07-global-warming-truth_x.htm

          “Carbon dioxide is an infrared-active gas (I hate the term “greenhouse gas”), and hence all else being equal (an important qualification) we expect more downward infrared radiation (and a heating effect) from the atmosphere with an increase in carbon dioxide. The detailed consequences of this, however, are unknown and possibly unknowable”.

          “How much of the present climate change is a direct consequence of human activity is difficult to say with certainty”.

          Bohren is a skeptic.

          http://sybilstar.blogspot.ca/2006/08/finally-sane-voice-about-global.html

          “”Skeptics about global warming are often painted as hirelings of the oil and automotive industries. Such claims irritate me. I have never earned a nickel as a consequence of my skepticism. Indeed, I have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars by it. “”

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            binny…you probably don’t understand a scientist who would pass up large amounts of money to be honest about science.

            Both Roy and John at UAH have that integrity, yet you attack their data sets and favour scoundrels such as those at NOAA.

          • David Appell says:

            How do you know they have that integrity?

            Do you know them personally?

            Are you aware of all the upward adjustments they’ve had to make in the past?

  34. It is still warm and time will tell. Not much more to say .

  35. Bindidon says:

    By accident I discovered in Forbes online magazine a contribution of a scientist named Marshall Shepherd (dated june 2016):

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2016/06/20/water-vapor-vs-carbon-dioxide-which-wins-in-climate-warming/#732027a93238

    His biography metioned therein is impressive and interesting:

    Dr. J. Marshall Shepherd, a leading international expert in weather and climate, was the 2013 President of American Meteorological Society (AMS) and is Director of the University of Georgias (UGA) Atmospheric Sciences Program. Dr. Shepherd is the Georgia Athletic Association Distinguished Professor and hosts The Weather Channels Sunday talk show Weather Geeks.

    Prior to UGA, Dr. Shepherd spent 12 years as a Research Meteorologist at NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center and was Deputy Project Scientist for the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) mission. In 2004, he was honored at the White House with a prestigious PECASE award.

    Shepherd is frequently sought as an expert on weather and climate by major media outlets, the White House, and Congress. He has over 80 peer-reviewed scholarly publications and numerous editorials. Dr. Shepherd received his B.S., M.S. and PhD in physical meteorology from Florida State University.

    Interesting because Mr Shepherds profile does not match that of those climate scientists involved e.g. in GCM modeling, for whom all dumb skeptics lack any respect. He is primarily a meteorologist.

    An interesting sentence:

    The astute reader will note that the atmospheric “greenhouse” effect is really a series of absorp-tion-emission processes rather than just heat entrapment (as a real greenhouse does).

    It would be nioe to note one day that Mr Shepherd might have interest in replacing Mr Mann as Senate testimony writer. That would be a real progress.

    • David Appell says:

      It also would be nice if Congress never asked Mark Steyn again to testify before them. He isn’t an expert in climate and had no reason to be there.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”It also would be nice if Congress never asked Mark Steyn again to testify before them. He isnt an expert in climate and had no reason to be there”.

        He has first hand information about corruption at NOAA, and I’m sure that interests Congress more than his expertise on climate.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”The astute reader will note that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is really a series of absorp-tion-emission processes rather than just heat entrapment (as a real greenhouse does).”

      In other words, there’s no proof that GHGs have anything to do with heat and the GHE is pseudo-science.

      What does he mean by ‘just heat entrapment’ in a real greenhouse. The glass traps molecules of air and heat is the kinetic energy of those molecules. There is no mechanism in the atmosphere to trap those molecules.

  36. gbaikie says:

    The average air temperature of Earth’s land surface is about 10 C and the average ocean air temperature is about 17 C.
    In a class of 100 students were 70% to have an average score
    of 17 and 30 students had score of 10. The class of 100 average score would be 14.9 (about 15).

    Earth average surface temperature is about 15 C due to earth’s
    ocean having a significantly higher surface air temperature.

    If Earth had a higher percentage of land area, say, 40% rather
    than just below 30%; would Earth’s average temperature be a lower temperature? And if earth’s had say, 90% of surface being ocean surface with only 10% land, would Earth have a higher average temperature?

    • Bindidon says:

      The average air temperature of Earths land surface is about 10 C and the average ocean air temperature is about 17 C.

      Wrong. I just checked the average value of the absolute temperature monthly record collected by up to 6,000 of the 7,280 GHCN V3 stations for 1880-today (2,700 in 2017), and it’s 14.45 C in average.

      • Bindidon says:

        But I have to reconsider my answer: GHCN V3 unadjusted is much higher than time series like Had-CRUT, GISS, NOAA or BEST.

        The average absolute temperature for 1951-1980 given by BEST:

        % Estimated Jan 1951-Dec 1980 monthly absolute temperature:
        % Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
        % 2.6 3.2 5.3 8.4 11.4 13.5 14.4 13.9 12.1 9.3 6.1 3.7

        That gives even 8.7 C.

        So as you see it highly depends of a couple of factors:
        – what temperature series du you choose?
        – over which time period do you build the average?

        The same will hold for the difference between all raw SST measurements and computed time series out of them, e.g. HadISST.

        • ren says:

          Bindidon
          Above 20 degrees latitude is only “weather”.
          http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zt_nh.gif

          • Bindidon says:

            Could you please explain what you exactly mean here?
            That’s a bit cryptic, isn’t it?

          • ren says:

            Look at the above satellite data.

          • Des says:

            An utterly meaningless statement.

          • David Appell says:

            Utterly meaningless statements are all ren ever has.

            He obviously has nothing better to do with his time.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Utterly meaningless statements are all ren ever has.

            He obviously has nothing better to do with his time.”

            He posts valuable information on meteorology. This site is run by a meteorologist whose data sets have utterly disproved AGW. It doesn’t seem to bother Roy that ren posts meteorological data, how about leaving that decision up to Roy?

            After all, Roy puts up with your blatant alarmist dogma.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            des…ren…”Look at the above satellite data.

            des…”An utterly meaningless statement”.

            ren is obviously light years ahead of you in intelligence. Binny asked him to explain his post and ren referred him to the satellite graph on this UAH site.

            I have done that numerous times with you alarmist clowns who come on this blog and completely ignore the valuable info in the UAH graph. Most of you have no idea how to interpret it.

            I know you are here as trolls, trying to disrupt a discussion on the UAH data, but that does not excuse you from making stupid statements like you made in your reply to ren.

      • Bindidon says:

        Nothing wrong, gbaikie, I have to retract here.

        I computed for BEST globe land the average absolute temperature out of their anomalies and the associated climatology, and the result is as follows:
        – 1880-2017: 8.72 C
        – 2000-2017: 9.63 C

        Thus

        1. Your ’10 C’ seems to be a correct actual estimate for the land average;

        2. The period 1951-1980 used as climatology for the anomalies seems to be by accident a good representative for 1880-now;

        3. The claim about BEST/GISS/NOAA/Had-CRUT calculating warmer temperatures than those which were measured at the stations, repeated ad nauseam by lots of dumb skeptics, is wrong: the calculated BEST global land average for 1880-now is about 6 C lower than the station average. And BEST has the highest temperatures among all records.

        • gbaikie says:

          “Nothing wrong, gbaikie, I have to retract here.”
          Ok. I posted below before seeing this.

        • An Inquirer says:

          I suppose you are calling GISS and NOAA liars. They say that they calculate higher upward trend in temperatures than what would be the case if they took straight measurements. They also provide graphs.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            inquirer…”I suppose you are calling GISS and NOAA liars. They say that they calculate higher upward trend in temperatures than what would be the case if they took straight measurements. They also provide graphs”.

            NOAA is the liar, GISS gets their data from NOAA, then they fudge it further.

            NOAA did it’s fudging under the Obama administration who were looking for climate propaganda to enhance their alarmist Climate Action Plan. The Trump admin is taking steps to correct that by cutting their funding and installing overseers.

            Under a recent investigation of NOAA by Lamar Smith the US government ordered NOAA to release documents. NOAA refused. Why would an honest government organization refuse?

            It’s sad when a major scientific organizations has to be monitored. GISS was run by James Hansen for years and he was a political animal about climate change. He was a buddy of Al Gore and was arrested with actress Daryl Hannah for protesting the Keystone Pipeline.

            Under Hansen, GISS was caught quietly trying to change the warmest year in US history from 1934 to 1998. Steve McIntyre caught him and GISS was forced to re-instate 1934.

            The current leader of GISS, Gavin Schmidt, is a Hansen protege and an uber-alarmist. He is a mathematician and a climate modeler, hardly an authority on real atmospheric physics although he calls his site realclimate.

            realclimate is nothing like Roy’s blog, where he allows us a fair amount of opinions. On realclimate, you talk the party line or you are banned.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson wrote:
            “He is a mathematician and a climate modeler, hardly an authority on real atmospheric physics although he calls his site realclimate.”

            And you’re a Radio Shack technician who wasn’t trained in math or physics.

            So you have no right to opine on climate science. None.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”And youre a Radio Shack technician who wasnt trained in math or physics”.

            Pretty daring charge from someone who doesn’t understand either physics or math.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          binny…”The claim about BEST/GISS/NOAA/Had-CRUT calculating warmer temperatures than those which were measured at the stations, repeated ad nauseam by lots of dumb skeptics, is wrong:”

          I have provided evidence several times, some straight from NOAA, that they fudge their temperature database using a climate model and by adjusting SSTs using methods that show the highest temperatures. They resorted to using only data from the water intakes of ships which inject a heat island effect into the water. When you suck water into a ship, you increase the water pressure and warm it. Also, the body of the ship warms it.

          The BEST study was refuted by one of it’s co-authors, Dr. Judith Curry. She claimed the lead author Mueller, fudged the study after they had signed off. She no longer supports it.

          Had.crut has failed to comply with requests for their database and methodology. Head of had.crut, Phil Jones, lied when he claimed he could not release the data because it belonged to others. When the ‘others’ were approached, most did not exist.

          You are seriously naive binny. They are all corrupt and they have proved it over and over.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “The BEST study was refuted by one of its co-authors, Dr. Judith Curry. She claimed the lead author Mueller, fudged the study after they had signed off.”

            And also by that coward AWatts, who lied about his potential to accept the paper.

            So what? They didn’t publish a rebuttal, did they? Curry (but not Watts) is a seasoned scientist who knows that only journal papers matter, not blog posts.

            Yet she declined to publish one. That does not speak well for her denial.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson wrote:
            “Head of had.crut, Phil Jones, lied when he claimed he could not release the data because it belonged to others. When the others were approached, most did not exist.”

            Prove it, Bubba.

            You’re assailing a man’s character. Be a man yourself and prove your claim here.

            Or wimp out as you usually do.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Gordon Robertson wrote:
            Head of had.crut, Phil Jones, lied when he claimed he could not release the data because it belonged to others. When the others were approached, most did not exist.

            Prove it, Bubba.”

            There’s a text file below from Pat Michaels in which the corruption of Jones is revealed.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”So what? They didnt publish a rebuttal, did they? Curry (but not Watts) is a seasoned scientist who knows that only journal papers matter, not blog posts”.

            You are a naive idiot. A post on the Net by Judith Curry reaches far more readers than a peer review journal.

      • gbaikie says:

        I am not talking average of stations measuring temperature- look at the locations of 7280 stations.

        The two largest countries in world are Russian and Canada both have average temperature of about -4 C.

        I already provided you link to BEST calculated [and methods explained] average yearly global land temperature , in my post in this thread:
        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-274430

        Which link given, was a paper:
        https://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-101.pdf

        Also:
        Canada:
        http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/canada
        Russia:
        http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/russia
        US:
        http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/united-states

        [That includes Alaska- normally US average is just
        the Contiguous United States which is about 13 C]
        Oh here is contiguous US:
        http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/contiguous-united-states

    • gbaikie says:

      I think increasing the percentage of ocean area would increase average global [though it could a slight amount- as example the rise of fall of sea level does alter amount of land area, or during the glacial periods when sea levels are about 140 meters lower- with the land bridge between N America and Asia- plus all continental shelves being land area- that effect alone in terms less ocean area, should be quite minor- though the effect upon ocean circulation could much more significant effect on global temperature.
      Also related is the idea/theory that during long history of Earth, it is thought that the foundation rock [granite] of continents has been increasing [growing/being created]- or roughly we have more land mass now as compared to billions of years ago.
      And if the earth was completely flat/level the oceans would completely cover the entire planet to depth of about 3000 meters- if ocean were not so deep, the oceans cover all the land areas. Plus some imagine the Earth used to have more ocean water.
      Though most recent fact is we didn’t always have polar ice caps [a recent, blink of eye last 50 million year type thing] though in last 500 million years or so we could had times even larger ice caps.
      Anyhow over the long history of Earth, one should not assume there is the same ratio of land and ocean.
      And we could have had vast shallow seas with lots coral islands- in the times Earth had life [or coral life].

      Next, get to the question, why are ocean areas warmer in terms of an average temperature than compared to land area?

      • gbaikie says:

        Transparent ocean water absorbs more energy from the Sun.

        And if ocean aren’t transparent this ability to absorb more energy from the sun can greatly diminished. So volcanic eruptions in tropics and human doing some massive ocean fertilization project could greatly diminish the amount a tropical ocean can absorbed the energy of sunlight.

        So the vast open ocean have very transparent and sterile water [unlike coastal waters] which allow sunlight pass thru many meters of ocean water. Blue light and UV light can travel thru 100 meters of the ocean surface. Red light and most of the sunlight of shortwave IR is limited to a few meters of ocean depth.
        And the constant wave action of the ocean creates the ocean’s thermocline.
        Wiki:
        “Most of the heat energy of sunlight is absorbed in the first few centimeters at the ocean’s surface, which heats during the day and cools at night as heat energy is lost to space by radiation. Waves mix the water near the surface layer and distribute heat to deeper water such that the temperature may be relatively uniform in the upper 100 m (300 ft)”
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermocline#Oceans
        Wiki is incorrect to say most of “heat energy of sunlight is absorbed in the first few centimeters”
        I assume wiki means “IR shortwave sunlight” when it says “heat energy of sunlight” and most of IR shortwave sunlight
        isn’t absorbed in first few centimeters” though IR shortwave sunlight is somewhat similar to red light and it penetrates the least. Or say most of “heat energy” absorbed within 1 meter.
        A significant portion of sunlight’s IR shortwave sunlight is “blocked” by water vapor in the atmosphere, and water will obviously absorbed this same spectrum of light as water vapor does. But sunlight despite having this portion of IR blocked still at surface has 52% of sunlight energy being shortwave IR. Or say wiki says:
        “sunlight at Earth’s surface is around 52 to 55 percent infrared (above 700 nm), 42 to 43 percent visible (400 to 700 nm), and 3 to 5 percent ultraviolet (below 400 nm).”
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight

        And also at link:
        “Then the direct sunlight at Earth’s surface when the Sun is at the zenith is about 1050 W/m2, but the total amount (direct and indirect from the atmosphere) hitting the ground is around 1120 W/m ”

        Which relates to why oceans absorb more sunlight- ocean absorbs direct and indirect sunlight.
        Or ocean water absorbs in a diffused fashion- it’s absorbed as goes thru significant depth of water rather within short distance- less than 1 mm depth of land’s surface [a rock, or dirt].

        So if you want to know how much say concrete sidewalk will heat by, it related to the amount of direct sunlight reaching it per square meter.
        So 1000 watts = 364 K [90 C]. And not 1120 = 374 K [100 C].
        Of course a sidewalk isn’t ideal blackbody and has air convectional loss depending air temperature [or if windy]. So high air temperature and sun’s near zenith, sidewalks can reach about 70 C [343 K or 158 F- btw, the needed temperature to fry an egg].
        And solar pond not only can reach 80 C, but can maintain 80 C during the night, but they won’t get much hotter than 80 C [some have claimed higher temperature of 90 C or higher- though if add reflected sunlight of course it can get get warmer]. But is the sunlight must pass thru much more than a few centimeters of water- more than 1/2 meter or less salty water. Or if most of “heat energy” was absorbed in first few centimeters, solar ponds wouldn’t work.

  37. Norman says:

    g*e*r*a*n

    STATES with confidence: “barry, you keep striving with your blah, blah, blah to somehow explain the 2nd Law.

    Just go with the KISS principleKeep it simple, stupid.

    Cold cannot warm hot.

    Simple.”

    But evidence is against his declarative statement and his understanding of the second law is flawed and incomplete.

    What does this poster mean by “Cold”? What does he mean by “warm”
    And what does this one mean with “hot”

    If g*e*r*a*n chooses these defintions
    Cold: lower temperature compared to other object(s) in area
    warm: Increase the temperature of object(s)
    hot: higher temperature compared to ohter object(s) in area.

    If this is his accepted definitions then he does not believe empirical science and delves in the world of fantasy and pseudoscience.

    Here:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824861/table/Tab2/

    This table shows that different levels of cold can warm hot compared to each other (which is all the GHE is claiming).

    Does a 26 C room (which is still much colder than the powered lab items some of which are 36 C) warm the powered items compared to a 20 C room? The data shows that cold does affect the equilibrium temperature of the “hot” objects.

    The evidence shows g*e*r*a*n does not have a clue about physics and wastes time by posting his phony make believe physics based upon nothing but his own beliefs.

    How will this one be able to deny real data and evidence which shows his declarative statement to be misleading? The evidence shows that “cold” can warm “hot” if the “hot” items are powered. The Earth’s surface is powered by the Sun. The cold atmosphere, being much warmer than outer space, will obviously lead to a warmer surface just as the lab items are warmer when the cold air temperature is increased. Real physics, reality.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      norman…”Here:
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824861/table/Tab2/

      This table shows that different levels of cold can warm hot compared to each other (which is all the GHE is claiming)”.

      The table has nothing to do with cold warming hot, the article is about the deleterious effect of hotter ambient temperatures on equipment. That’s a no-brainer to any one who has worked in electronics.

      “Does a 26 C room (which is still much colder than the powered lab items some of which are 36 C) warm the powered items compared to a 20 C room? The data shows that cold does affect the equilibrium temperature of the hot objects”.

      How do you draw such inferences? The equipment is at 36 C due to internal power generation and the fact it exists in a 20C room. If you raise the room temperature to 26 C the equipment’s temperature will rise.

      It has to do with the equipment’s ability to shed heat. If the room T was the same as the temperature internally of the equipment it could not shed heat and it would likely be destroyed. A room at 26C as opposed to one at 20 C prevents the degree of cooling the equipment would experience at 20C.

      It’s in the equation you supplied with T-radiator and T-environment.

      • Norman says:

        Gordon Robertson

        Is your post for real?

        It definitely and without doubt shows that cold can warm hot.

        Is the temperature of the air colder than the powered objects.

        Just a Yes or No.

        Is 20 C or 26 C colder than 36 C? Just Yes or No.

        So cold 26 C air (cold relative to the 30+C equipment) warms the equipment to higher temperatures than the 20 C can do.

        Is the equipment warmer with 20 C air or 26 C air?

        Both are cold compared to the hot. The equilibrium temperature of the equipment is warmer, so by basic logic, the colder air warmed the equipment (its temperature is higher than before).

        The hot is warmer in one case over the other. The cold is warming the hot as nothing else has changed. The power input to the lab equipment is the same, it was not increased. The only change was the cold temp and less cold warmed the objects more than colder cold could do.

        Gordon, now answer your point.

        YOU: “It has to do with the equipments ability to shed heat. If the room T was the same as the temperature internally of the equipment it could not shed heat and it would likely be destroyed. A room at 26C as opposed to one at 20 C prevents the degree of cooling the equipment would experience at 20C.”

        Why does the 26 C prevent the degree of cooling of a 20 C room. Both are colder than the equipment.

        • Norman says:

          Gordon Robertson

          Do you understand why energy transfers (at the molecular level) from a hot object to a cold one and why it changes based upon the temperature gradient?

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_collision

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum

          Look at the graphic collisions in the first link.
          (scroll down a bit)

          You will see a faster moving block (equal mass) hitting a slower moving block moving toward it. What happens? You get a two-way energy transfer. The energy of the slower moving block is transferred to the previous faster moving block and visa versa.

          The slower moving block transfers its energy to the faster moving block.

          If you have an object near absolute zero touching a warmer object nearly all the energy is transferred from the warmer object to the colder one (look at elastic collisions in the link). If you warm the cold object up then it will transfer some of its energy when its surface molecules interact with the hotter objects surface molecules. The rate of heat transfer will slow down since some energy is flowing back into the hotter object from the colder one. The HEAT FLOW (net energy flow) will always be one way but the energy will flow both ways. As both objects reach the same temperature the molecules in each surface do not suddenly stop moving. They are both hitting each other continuously but now you have the Newton cradle.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JadO3RuOJGU

          You still have energy exchanges and energy flows, they are just equal now so no heat flows.

          Think about it!

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          norman…”Gordon, now answer your point.

          YOU: It has to do with the equipments ability to shed heat. If the room T was the same as the temperature internally of the equipment it could not shed heat and it would likely be destroyed. A room at 26C as opposed to one at 20 C prevents the degree of cooling the equipment would experience at 20C.

          Why does the 26 C prevent the degree of cooling of a 20 C room. Both are colder than the equipment”.

          I answered it in the quote. The equipment’s ability to shed heat is dependent on the ambient room temperature. It’s in the equation you gave: q = ε σ (Th^4 – Tc^4) Ac

          Where Th is the hot body temp and Tc = cooler surroundings temp.

          If Th = Tc, q = 0. You can see immediately by raising and lowering Tc that the radiation increases and decreases. If you take Tc down to freezing, at 0C, the equipment will cool much faster.

          There is nothing in that equation about the room transferring heat to the equipment unless Tc > Th. Then the sign of q will become negative, indicating a reversal of energy flow.

          Note that this equation obeys the 2nd law. There is nothing in there to indicate an energy flow from the cooler object to the hotter object.

          • David Appell says:

            GR wrote:
            “There is nothing in that equation about the room transferring heat to the equipment unless Tc > Th”

            Do both objects radiate?

            If so (and they do, of course), where does that radiation go?

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon? Don’t wimp out on yet another question…

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”There is nothing in that equation about the room transferring heat to the equipment unless Tc > Th

            Do both objects radiate?

            If so (and they do, of course), where does that radiation go?”

            ************

            I have answered that question many times, you are far too obtuse to understand it. I also answered it with Tc < Th with the heat transfer equation. Objects only absorb energy from hotter objects, as per the 2nd law. The radiation from cooler objects obviously bounces around till they find a cooler object to absorb them.

            Why do you have trouble understanding this stuff?

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            Have you ever read what the terms in the equation you posted mean. Done a deeper study of it? It seems you have not by your statement.

            YOU: “Note that this equation obeys the 2nd law. There is nothing in there to indicate an energy flow from the cooler object to the hotter object.”

            Wow! You are in direct contradiction of what the equation is stating. So what do you think the Tc^4 term is?
            q = ε σ (Th^4 Tc^4) Ac

            Since you do not read or study real physics but get all your knowledge from the crackpots of PSI I will tell you what the textbooks say the term is.

            Tc^4 is the ENERGY (when expanded and multiplied by the other terms) the hot surface receives from the colder surroundings. It is the incident energy from the surrounding radiating objects that is absorbed by the hot surface.

            I can’t make you understand this, but it is what the equation is stating. If you take any time to read into it you will see this.

            David Appell is 100% correct on it and you are 100% wrong. You do not know the physics you think you do.

            David Appell is also correct when he observes you have trouble understanding this stuff. The flaw is not ours, it is in your ability to understand basic physics. Too much PSI on the brain. The stuff over there is really distorted and false physics. That is why everyone has banned the material on their blogs. It is unscientific distorted BS that no scientific blog will touch with a long extended pole. If you studied real science you would start to see how horrible the science is on that site.

          • barry says:

            Objects only absorb energy from hotter objects, as per the 2nd law. The radiation from cooler objects obviously bounces around till they find a cooler object to absorb them.

            OMG.

            Thank god Kristian is here. The only ‘skeptic’ on the board who doesn’t post at this level of bollocks on the subject.

          • Ball4 says:

            “Kristian…The only ‘skeptic’ on the board who doesn’t post at this level of bollocks on the subject.”

            barry, barry … Now I don’t feel the love here. Eight years of college down the drain.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        norman…”s your post for real?
        It definitely and without doubt shows that cold can warm hot.
        Is the temperature of the air colder than the powered objects”.

        You are revealing yourself as a blatant idiot. I told you, from my vast experience in electroncs that electronic machines and all machines generate heat internally. The amount of heat they generate as NOTHING to do with the ambient temperature, it has to do with internal friction in moving parts and the internal friction of electric currents running through conductors and devices.

        The problem is heat dissipation. That’s where ambient temperatures come into it. I told you, and your equation corroborates it, that when the ambient temperature equals the internally generated temperature, the internal heat cannot be dissipated effectively and the device heats up.

        It is not drawing heat from the atmosphere it is generating heat internally. The closer the ambient room temperature is to the internal heat temperature the less heat the machine can dissipate. Therefore, a room at 25C will not allow as much heat dissipation as a room at 20C.

        Wherever did you get the notion that a cooler room is supplying heat to a machine?

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon wrote:
          “Wherever did you get the notion that a cooler room is supplying heat to a machine?”

          Is the cooler room radiating?

          (Yes.)

          So where does that heat go?

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          “You are revealing yourself as a blatant idiot. I told you, from my vast experience in electroncs….”

          What exactly is your experience in electronics?

          As a tech.

          Post your resume here so we can decide for ourselves what kind of “expert” you are.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon, post your resume here so we can all see your qualifications to opine on climate science.

            What are you afraid of?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”post your resume here so we can all see your qualifications to opine on climate science”.

            Only an idiot would post personal information onto the Net unless he/she is in business and needs to do that. What does my resume have to do with anything? Is the information I present accurate or not? You seem to be having trouble comprehending it never mind understanding it or replying to it.

            Is your CV available?

        • Norman says:

          Gordon Robertson

          Gordon: “You are revealing yourself as a blatant idiot.”

          No you are revealing you are unable to answer questions. I am not asking about heat dissipation.

          I have asked simple questions that you will not answer.

          HERE AGAIN, just answer the questions. No other information is needed.

          Yes or No please

          1) Is 20 C or 26 C air colder than 36 C equipment? Yes or No?
          2) Is the equipment warmer in 20 C air or 26 C air? 20 C/ or 26 C?
          3) Did the equipment warm when 20 C air was replaced by 26 C air? Yes/or No?

          26 C is colder than 36 C. The equipment temperature went up from the 20 C room. This means the equipment warmed. What part of the English language is troubling you? Did anything else warm the equipment to a higher temperature? Did the technicians doing the test increase the energy to the lab objects? If not the only change was in the cold air temperature. Raising the temperature of the cold air warmed the objects. Yes or No?

          • PhilJ says:

            You guys are still trying to argue cold heats hot… Wow… If you ever figure out howto actually do that youve solved all the worlds energy needs…

            No.. The warmer room did not heat the instrument … The power source did … Because the warmer room did not conduct heat away from the instrument as quickly as the colder room …
            Wht do you insist on looking at this ass backwards??

          • Norman says:

            PhilJ

            Sorry but you don’t understand conduction. I gave links above to what the process is.

            In the coldest possible state for conduction (absolute zero) lowest amount of molecular vibration possible. The molecules vibrating on a warm surface will transfer all their energy to these molecules and receive back none in return. As the coldest object warms and the surface molecules interact (vibrational collisions in solids), the cold molecules will transfer their energy to the hotter surface and the hot surface vibrating molecules will have some energy retained after the collisions. As the cold object gets warmer still, its molecules will transfer even more energy to the hotter object.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-274914

            You can look at the links in my post. It will demonstrate visually what I am stating. It is established physics.

            The 26 C air transfers more energy per collision to the powered lab items than the 20 C air can, the energy to the powered objects is the same in both situations, it has a constant input of energy, if it is absorbing more from its surroundings from the 26 C air than the 20 C air it will warm up to higher temperatures until it can rid itself of the input energy. The cold air is responsible for warming the equipment to higher temperatures.

          • PhilJ says:

            No no no no

            In both cases 20 or 26 C air , heat is being transferred from the powered instrument to the air..

            The 20C air is denser thus there are more collisions with the insrument and with a lower KE more energy can be transfered from the instrument per collision.. Thus the 20 C air removes heat from the instrument at a greater rate and the instrument temp lowers…

            The 26 C air does not add energy to the instrument … It removes heat at a slower rate , so the instrument temp must rise until the energy/collision times the number of collisions is equal to the energy input of the power source..

            In both cases it is the power source that heats the instrument and the instrument that transfers heat to the air…

          • Norman says:

            PhilJ

            You are responding without looking at the links I provided.

            Energy exchange is a two-way process.

            I suggest you play with a Newton Cradle as it will let you see this.

            I think you are wrong on your density logic. I do not think there is much difference between 20 C air and 26 C air plus the warmer air is moving faster and will have more collisions per time than the colder air. Not sure what your sources are. If you are certain you are correct in your thought process, post some links where you get your information, I would like to read up on it. I am always upgrading my knowledge base and correcting incorrect ideas (prune the tree of knowledge).

            When two objects are moving toward each other, each transfers energy to the other. If an object is stationary (absolute zero in molecular processes) all the energy of the moving object, in a collision, is transferred to the stationary object and none is transferred back to the moving object. The result is the previously moving object stops and the previously stationary object moves in the same direction as the other one was moving with the same speed.

            If two objects are moving toward each other they transfer the energy they had to the opposing object. So a slow moving object will transfer energy back to the faster moving one. That is why heat transfer slows down and the object and surroundings near in temperature. The surroundings add energy back to the object, the warmer the surroundings, the more energy is added back and the loss of heat slows down to a crawl. When both at the same temperature the energy exchange is equal. Newton Cradle when you have two opposing balls strike the other stationary balls. Both transfer the same amount of energy to each other and they move off in opposite directions.

            Think about it.

          • PhilJ says:

            Hi Norman,
            First of all.. Egg on my face … I was wrong .. You are correct that the number of collisions due to velocity is a greater factor in a gas than the density and in fact warmer air is a slightly better conducter thsn cooler air… Just reminds me how much ive forgotten since courses mant years ago … Lol

            I still maintain though that in both the 20 and 26 C air you have the instrument losing energy to the air ..

            Heat always flows hot to cold … But im going to refrain from arguing it with you further till i bone back up on elastic collisions and KE transfer so i dont get egg on my face again lol

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      The con-man confuses himself AGAIN! “The evidence shows g*e*r*a*n does not have a clue about physics and wastes time by posting his phony make believe physics based upon nothing but his own beliefs”

      Norm, you have no experience with thermodynamics or heat transfer. You are grasping at straws so often, your have become your own straw man!

      The equipment is the heat source, you poor impotent chihuahua! That means the equipment is a “heater”. The equipment is bring new energy into the system. That is why its temperature is increased by the room temperature. You just don’t have a clue about heat flow. Earth’s surface is NOT a thermodynamic heat source. The Sun IS the heat source.

      Now, more of your immature, pathetic rambling, please.

      .

      • Ball4 says:

        “Earth’s surface is NOT a thermodynamic heat source.”

        Hilarious! Try walking across an asphalt parking lot in bare feet on a 130F sunny day in Phoenix summer say early afternoon. I do believe some sense would be pounded into anger’s head. Right quickly.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          The poor cabbage head doesn’t understand “thermodynamic heat source”.

          Hey CH, how did that asphalt get so hot?

          (Hilarious.)

          • Ball4 says:

            Ahhh…anger gets my point, the anticipation of pain was a lesson learned.

            The thought of pain from an asphalt thermodynamic heat source contacting anger’s bare feet that was warmed by the sun (another thermodynamic heat source) got through to anger. Can anger think of anymore thermodynamic heat sources warming stuff?

      • Norman says:

        g*e*r*a*n

        You fail your own point. I brought that example up to demonstrate your incorrect declarative statement. It does not matter if the lab items are powered or not. That has little to do with your statement.

        HERE again for you selective memory: barry, you keep striving with your blah, blah, blah to somehow explain the 2nd Law.

        Just go with the KISS principle Keep it simple, stupid.

        Cold cannot warm hot.

        Simple.

        Now use your own principle, Keep it simple, stupid.

        Is the lab equipment in my link hotter than the cold air? Yes/No?

        If you answer No you are an idiot and we can no continue a discussion. If you answered Yes then you admit the air is “Cold”

        You will also admit the powered lab objects are “hot”

        Your statement is that Cold cannot warm hot.

        If the lab instruments have the same amount of energy powering them in the two different cases of room temperature (20 C and 26 C) then the source of energy to the lab equipment cannot be the cause of warming. It is the same amount of energy. Adding the same amount of energy to objects will not warm them. So the cause must be the surrounding. The diffference in the cold. You did agree that the 26 C air is “cold” This cold led to higher temperature of the lab equipment. It would clearly (at least if you had a logical thought process which you do not) demonstrate that yes indeed Cold can warm hot. Is the temperature of the lab equipment higher in one state than the other?

      • Norman says:

        g*e*r*a*n

        YOU: “The equipment is the heat source, you poor impotent chihuahua! That means the equipment is a heater. The equipment is bring new energy into the system. That is why its temperature is increased by the room temperature. You just dont have a clue about heat flow. Earths surface is NOT a thermodynamic heat source. The Sun IS the heat source.”

        NO g*e*r*a*n, the equipment is not the heat source. Call me what you need to, it does not help your argument. The heat source is the electricity that is adding energy to the lab equipment. It is a passive object and produces no energy. Very similar to the Earth’s surface. But the objects warm up when the cold air is less cold.

        When did I say the Earth’s surface was a heat source? Distorting my posts and then saying I don’t know anything about heat transfer makes you a lunatic. Do you need counseling?

        Here is what I posted to you above: “How will this one be able to deny real data and evidence which shows his declarative statement to be misleading? The evidence shows that cold can warm hot if the hot items are powered. The Earths surface is powered by the Sun. The cold atmosphere, being much warmer than outer space, will obviously lead to a warmer surface just as the lab items are warmer when the cold air temperature is increased. Real physics, reality.”

        To isolate: ME: “The Earths surface is powered by the Sun.”

        AGAIN YOU: “You just dont have a clue about heat flow. Earths surface is NOT a thermodynamic heat source. The Sun IS the heat source.”

        Wow you are really messed up g*e*r*a*n. Did you have a few too many? That is okay, maybe you will sober up tomorrow.

  38. Gordon Robertson says:

    Text file in my archives from Pat Michaels showing the abject corruption at CRU, better known as Had-crut. Michaels is a climate scientist who was the state climatologist for the state of Virginia till he was fired for being a skeptic.

    The file reveals the shenanigans of Phil Jones, head of CRU, in his attempts to stop prying eyes evaluating his data.

    McKitrick and Michaels published a paper revealing a study of the record since 1979, comparing the surface record to satellite data. They estimated the surface data could be overestimated by 50%.

    The URL is defunct, I included it to help anyone who wants to try tracking it down:

    b. National Review Online, 23 September 2009

    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM=By

    Patrick J. Michaels

    Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal in Copenhagen in December. Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.

    Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really happened, and they aren’t talking much. And what little they are saying makes no sense.

    In the early 1980s, with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, scientists at the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia established the Climate Research Unit (CRU) to produce the world’s first comprehensive history of surface temperature. It’s known in the trade as the “Jones and Wigley” record for its authors, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, and it served as the primary reference standard for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007. It was this record that prompted the IPCC to claim a “discernible human influence on global climate.”

    Putting together such a record isn’t at all easy. Weather stations weren’t really designed to monitor global climate. Long-standing ones were usually established at points of commerce, which tend to grow into cities that induce spurious warming trends in their records. Trees grow up around thermometers and lower the afternoon temperature. Further, as documented by the University of Colorado’s Roger Pielke Sr., many of the stations themselves are placed in locations, such as in parking lots or near heat vents, where artificially high temperatures are bound to be recorded.

    So the weather data that go into the historical climate records that are required to verify models of global warming aren’t the original records at all. Jones and Wigley, however, weren’t specific about what was done to which station in order to produce their record, which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6 C +/- 0.2 C in the 20th century.

    Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/-” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

    Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to “try and find something wrong.” The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.

    Then the story changed. In June 2009, Georgia Tech’s Peter Webster told Canadian researcher Stephen McIntyre that he had requested raw data, and Jones freely gave it to him. So McIntyre promptly filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the same data. Despite having been invited by the National Academy of Sciences to present his analyses of millennial temperatures, McIntyre was told that he couldn’t have the data because he wasn’t an “academic.” So his colleague Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph, asked for the data. He was turned down, too.

    Faced with a growing number of such
    requests, Jones refused them all, saying that
    there were “confidentiality” agreements regarding
    the data between CRU and nations that supplied
    the data. McIntyre’s blog readers then requested
    those agreements, country by country, but only a
    handful turned out to exist, mainly from Third
    World countries and written in very vague language.

    It’s worth noting that McKitrick and I
    had published papers demonstrating that the
    quality of land-based records is so poor that the
    warming trend estimated since 1979 (the first
    year for which we could compare those records to
    independent data from satellites) may have been
    overestimated by 50 percent. Webster, who
    received the CRU data, published studies linking
    changes in hurricane patterns to warming (while others have found otherwise).

    Enter the dog that ate global warming.

    Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor
    of environmental studies at the University of
    Colorado, then requested the raw data from Jones. Jones responded:

    Since the 1980s, we have merged the data
    we have received into existing series or begun
    new ones, so it is impossible to say if all
    stations within a particular country or if all of
    an individual record should be freely available.
    Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that
    we were not able to keep the multiple sources for
    some sites, only the station series after
    adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore,
    do not hold the original raw data but only the
    value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.

    The statement about “data storage” is
    balderdash. They got the records from somewhere.
    The files went onto a computer. All of the
    original data could easily fit on the 9-inch tape
    drives common in the mid-1980s. I had all of the
    world’s surface barometric pressure data on one such tape in 1979.

    If we are to believe Jones’s note to the
    younger Pielke, CRU adjusted the original data
    and then lost or destroyed them over twenty years
    ago. The letter to Warwick Hughes may have been
    an outright lie. After all, Peter Webster
    received some of the data this year. So the
    question remains: What was destroyed or lost,
    when was it destroyed or lost, and why?

    All of this is much more than an
    academic spat. It now appears likely that the
    U.S. Senate will drop cap-and-trade climate
    legislation from its docket this fall – whereupon
    the Obama Environmental Protection Agency is
    going to step in and issue regulations on
    carbon-dioxide emissions. Unlike a law, which
    can’t be challenged on a scientific basis, a
    regulation can. If there are no data, there’s no
    science. U.S. taxpayers deserve to know the
    answer to the question posed above. (Patrick J.
    Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental
    studies at the Cato Institute and author of
    Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know.) “

    • David Appell says:

      Who thinks the National Review honestly reports on climate change?

      No one, that’s who.

      Except a few oblivious, lying Canadians.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”Who thinks the National Review honestly reports on climate change?”

        What does the National Review have to do with a paper presented by the climate scientist Pat Michaels? He is a degree pertinent to climate science, do you? Have you ever held the position of state climatologist?

      • lewis says:

        Typical DA – attack the messenger.
        I suppose if the NYT or the Nation or Mother Jones or Rolling Stone published it DA would find it satisfactory

    • barry says:

      Gordon, here’s a working link.

      http://www.nationalreview.com/article/228291/dog-ate-global-warming-patrick-j-michaels

      Michael’s criticism is way out of date. The Met Office record is broadly corroborated by JMA, GISS, NOAA, GSOD, BEST, by skeptics Phil Condon and Roman M, who produced their own record from raw data (higher trends than Met Office) UAH and RSS. Different methods and data produce largely the same results, with minor differences. Met Office global temp record has the lowest trends of the surface records bar JMA, which has the least coverage.

      • barry says:

        McIntyre, by the way, has had access to the raw data for 6 years, and done nothing about it. Where is his global temp record?

        Same with Warwick Hughes. He has produced no alt global temp record nor any paper on the matter since. Wonder why he lost interest when the data became available…

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”Gordon, heres a working link”.

        Thanks for link.

        To be fair, the sources you mention are all on the same side. Some have proved to be in bed together, as exhibited in the Climategate emails.

        The point Michaels is making is that several people tried to get access to the CRU data and Jones blocked them. He gave it freely to one of his cronies after claiming it was not available.

        Michaels has not had an easy time of it. He was fired as state climatologist by the State of Virginia for expressing skeptical views. Back in the days when Hansen was spouting climate alarm, Michaels was the only climate scientist opposing him. Hansen was funded by the US government, through NASA GISS and friends of Al Gore, and Michaels was on his own cognizance. Western Fuels stepped up and offered to fund him and the alarmists jumped all over that as him being in bed with big oil.

        I would have done the same. There was no conflict of interest unless Michaels spoke on their behalf. WF was happy to fund him because he was talking their language, that’s not the fault of Michaels. If Michaels can’t accept funding from WF then Hansen should not have been able to accept funding from friends of Al Gore, or use his position at GISS to spread propaganda.

        • barry says:

          To be fair, the sources you mention are all on the same side.

          These are all the parties. GISS, Met Office, NOAA, JMA, BEST, UAH, RSS. Phil Condon is an avowed skeptic, and he got higher trends than Had.CRU in his temp reconstruction from raw data.

          Check it out:

          https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/thermal-hammer/

          So if al these are on the same side, and the raw data has ben available since 2011…

          WHERE ARE THE GLOBAL TEMP RECORDS PUT TOGETHER BY ‘THE OTHER SIDE’?

          As I said, Warwick Hughes and Steve McIntyre have had access for 6 years and they’ve produced NOTHING.

          They wanted the data. They’ve had access for six years. What the hell did they ask for it for?

          Maybe Jones had their number right. Sure looks that way. These guys were time-wasters.

        • barry says:

          Raw CRU data has been available from this page since at least May 2012, verified by the internet caching archive, wayback machine.

          https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem4/data/download.html

          Steve McIntyre confirmed the release and posted links to the raw data in July 2011.

          All that raw data and Hughes and McIntyre have been AWOL on it for years. Why did the hell they request it in the first place, urging FOIs, if not to work on it?

  39. Gordon Robertson says:

    There were questions the other day about the validity of the 270 ppmv CO2 concentration of the pre-Industrial Era as determined by ice core samples. This article deals with the validity of that claim and about ice core proxies in general.

    There is a question as to why Callandar and the IPCC cherry picked certain CO2 concentrations in the 19th and 20th century while ignoring much higher concentrations. They ignored concentrations that would have disqualified their claim of anthropogenic warming since the Industrial Era.

    https://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/CO2-ice-HS.htm

    • David Appell says:

      When are you gonna prove that CO2 can only cause a few hundredths of degrees of temperature increase, as you wrote above?

      I hope you’re not gonna bail on this, as cowards usually do….

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”When are you gonna prove that CO2 can only cause a few hundredths of degrees of temperature increase, as you wrote above?”

        I already have, your lack of understanding of basic chemistry has obviously made it impossible for you to understand the Ideal Gas Equation and Dalton’s Law.

        g*r is right, you’re whining is humourous.

    • barry says:

      Dear God, anyone with half a brain can see that the CO2 content since daily measurements were taken at pristine sites around the world has remained very stable, with an increase, since 1958.

      Idiots somehow imagine that the supposed huge annual global fluctuations during the last 150 years or so (Beck) promulgated in skeptic blogs and by the odd maverick (Jarowoski, ice cores) suddenly stopped happening in 1957 as soon as these careful atmospheric measurements were taken. I wonder what mechanism caused that? Could it be that older records were taken in CO2 rich environments, like in cities and these were used for global background levels? Nah… no one would be that foolish…. except for Ernst Beck.

      And Gordon points us to a half-assed blog by some nobody who had enough deep insight to copy and paste Jarowoski’s paper in full. No doubt he thinks this anonymous person has ‘revealed’ the truth.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        But barry, you pointed us to the bogus blue/green plate problem, which you dreamt would “prove” the GHE.

        Sadly for Warmists, it has failed miserably.

        (So thanks for pointing it out.)

      • barry says:

        When you have nothing, change the subject.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”Idiots somehow imagine that the supposed huge annual global fluctuations during the last 150 years or so (Beck) promulgated in skeptic blogs and by the odd maverick (Jarowoski, ice cores)…”

        It’s ironic, not to mention silly, how alarmist always attack the messenger without providing an intelligent rebuttal. Beck has been dismissed as just a high school teacher while all he did was collate the work of scientists over the 19th and 20th centuries who found atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the vicinity of 400 ppmv during those times.

        Jaworowski is a renowned expert in radiation and ice cores yet Barry dismisses him as an ‘old maverick’. A maverick is defined as “an unorthodox or independent-minded person”. Suddenly it’s wrong in science, according to barry and his fellow alarmists, to be unorthodox and independent-minded.

        I found the evidence of scientists in the collation of Beck and the articles of Jaworowski to be remarkable, both for their detail and their fact. Silly me for even considering a well-written article because it came from a skeptic.

        If I could find just one paper from an alarmist scientist that did not veer off into pseudo-science I could get into the POV presented.

        I have still to understand what a blog has to do with independent papers presented in it. If the papers are well written and draw on scientific fact, what’s the problem? You publish papers on WUWT and I have no issues with your presentations, even though I don’t agree with the premise. I applaud your for your effort.

        skepticalscience is run by an admitted cartoonist who presents his own views, no doubt based on his cartoon characters. desmogblog is run by a public relations expert and allegedly funded with shady money. realclimate is run by a mathematician and a geologist, both of whom don’t hesitate to express scientific views that go against the grain in physics.

        • barry says:

          You had an opportunity to deal with the point made – I bolded it for you so you could not miss it – but you elected to ignore it. Same old same old.

          “old maverick” – not what I said.

  40. ren says:

    Arctic air flows behind the front into east US.
    http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00950/vbrksd1da41h.png

  41. professorP says:

    Ren posts numerous irrelevant bits of information but never explains or discusses them
    My diagnosis is that he lives alone without any hobbies or interests other than this blog site.
    Probably a bit like Gordon Robertson. The difference being that Gordon is old and misinformed while ren is very young and uninformed.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      prof…”My diagnosis is that he lives alone without any hobbies or interests other than this blog site”.

      Could it be that he’s from Poland and English is not his first language? To you the info may be irrelevant since from your ad homs you are scientifically challenged.

      How about dropping the pathetic professorP nym and use your regular nym?

      • professorP says:

        Polish ?- Either that or Irish.
        Or even worse- Canadian.
        Why can’t we vote to ban all Polish/Irish/Canadians from this blog?
        It would remove a lot of rubbish.

    • lewis says:

      Ah yes, another who decides for all what we should read or be interested in.

      How holier-than-thou. Is it DA is disguise, or just a wanna-be?

  42. Gordon Robertson says:

    A good explanation for the history behind the IPCC and global warming theory. Shows how blatantly political was the motivation behind the IPCC and spreading global warming/climate change propaganda.

    Those who claim climate change propaganda is based on left-wingers should note that the driving force behind it was uber-right winger Margaret Thatcher, former PM of the UK.

    https://www.john-daly.com/history.htm

  43. Gordon Robertson says:

    norman from the book, Valence, by C. Coulton. There’s a downloadable link on the Net if you search enough.

    “It is clear that the intimate description of a chemical bond of which we have spoken, must be essentially electronic. It is the behaviour and distribution of the electrons around the nucleus that gives the fundamental character of an atom: it must be the same for molecules. In one sense, therefore, the description of the bonds in any molecule is simply the description of the electron distribution in it”.

    It’s all about electrons, norman, I have no idea why you are fighting that fact so vehemently. Heat is about electrons and so is EM absorp-tion and emission. Molecules are about electrons as stated above.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Consequently, the direction of heat transfer radiatively is determined by the relative energy of electrons in the bodies involved. That explains the 2nd law, none of your explanations or those of barry can explain it.

      Clausius said nothing whatsoever about the net energies of EM. He did not even know what EM was. He thought heat was transferred physically through an ‘aether’ that everyone back then believed existed in empty space.

      Even Planck believed that as late as 1900, calling EM heat rays. He later admitted that if he had paid closer attention to the developing electron theory in the 1890s that it would have made his understanding of heat transfer much easier.

      Heat cannot pass through a vacuum but EM can. That should tell you right there that heat requires atoms to be transferred.

  44. Gordon Robertson says:

    This is a post from a CBC blog here in Canada submitted by a poster called Seeingblue. The statements reveal the agenda of certain alarmist climate scientist to lie to the public if required.

    “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Stephen Schneider, lead author of many IPCC reports

    “Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” – Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

    “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” – Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

    “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

    “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

    “The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” – emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

    “We require a central organizing principle – one agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change – these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the publics desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.” – Al Gore

    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Program

    See the rest here:
    http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=27941

    • barry says:

      Ah yes, the litany of elided quotes. Quote-mining by axe-grinders was ever deceptive. Schneider’s well-worn quote goes thus. The bolded bits are what has been elided from the oh-so neutral collection above.

      On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

      Pretty bloody different with the whole thing, isn’t it? Someone who is torn between the rigour of science and the genuine need to be effective in making the world a better place according to his genuine concern about the danger of AGW. It’s the well-known difficulty of the nexus between scientific rigour and politics. This isn’t a snake-oil salesman, this is someone reflecting on that difficult nexus, and ultimately hoping that scientific rigour and political effectiveness can go hand in hand. And it is a self-avowed personal take, which the vile elisions also manage to get rid of, and turn into a general conspiracy.

      Stephen Schneider died a few years ago, having given his life to science, and was genuinely worried about AGW. These perversions of his work and comments are pretty foul to my mind, whatever one’s view on AGW.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Translation: “We are such caring people, and very smart, so that makes it okay to lie to the sheep.”

        That’s the same mentality that is used for all crimes, perversions, and atrocities, throughout history.

      • barry says:

        Translation: You’re a grotesque idiot.

      • barry says:

        You lie and don’t give a shit.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This double ethical bind we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both”.

        You have a serious inability to decipher fact from fiction. and bs from integrity. He admitted it’s OK to lie. Full stop!!

        Even though he tried to soften it by claiming, “I hope that means both”, he is still condoning lying and misleading people. There is no double ethical bind, you lie or you don’t. What is ethical in thinking you have to lie to people for their perceived own good?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          I don’t think Roy or John Christy at UAH suffer from that problem, they just tell it like it is. The dif.fer.en.ce is, they have the data to prove their claims and modelers like the author of the ex.cerp.t above do not.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            more WordPress censor bs.

            It’s either difference or ex.cerp.t.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            That’s why I have so much trouble with the alarmist POV, they don’t care if they lie. Appell has taken to calling me a liar, as have you, when I present the facts to you with direct proof.

            This goes back to the IPCC declaration of the warming hiatus. You called me a liar. When I presented the actual statement from their literature, you did not back off, you carried on making excuses.

            You called me a liar for claiming NOAA has slashed over 75% of their reporting stations globally. I posted the link in which they admitted to doing that and you went off on another tangent rather than acknowledge it.

            Now you are supporting a scientist who claims lying is OK.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            It’s ex.cerp.t. It must be in the p.t as in absorp.tion.

          • barry says:

            You called me a liar for claiming NOAA has slashed over 75% of their reporting stations globally. I posted the link in which they admitted to doing that and you went off on another tangent rather than acknowledge it.

            I not only acknowledge the link, I posted it and quoted the article.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-274976

            You failed to deal with it. You. Are. A Liar.

            Serially.

    • barry says:

      And not one link so that an interested reader could background the quotes and get context. This is woefully shady stuff. The kind of dross Robertson laps up. I used to rigorously fact-check shady stuff like this. It got boring the zillionth time it became clear it was obfuscatory BS. With no links, it’s instantly recognizable for what it is. I just happened to know the full Schneider quote from the first dozen times someone paraphrased it to perversion.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”I just happened to know the full Schneider quote from the first dozen times someone paraphrased it to perversion”.

        I knew of the full Schneider quote as well. It would have made no difference to quote it. He still infers it’s OK to lie and that the decision is up to the author.

        All of the quotes have a reference to the author and I supplied a link to the article. Do you think anyone would take the chance of posting such quotes if they were not true?

        • barry says:

          They are elided to pervert their meaning, as I demonstrated and described.

          Your take is as insightful as always.

          Shady operators do not reference properly. BS artists don’t reference at all.

      • barry says:

        Jeez Gordon, every time I make a substantive rebuttal on the NOAA station data it’s as if you suddenly become blind. This has happened for months. I think you have particularly strong blinders.

        Follow the links: Two clicks.

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-275146

  45. barry says:

    BTW, woodfortrees is now up to date with the latest global temperature time series: GISS, Uk Met Office, UAHv6 and RSSv4.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/

    • Bindidon says:

      Yes barry, and Paul Clark even added BEST l+o. He does wonderful work.

      But a problem remains: for necessary baseline adjustements in multiple anomaly plot charts, WFT requests an offset specification, instead of allowing us to specify the baseline period we need and shifting by the average.

      Thus you always need to know the offset.

      If the data is available as monthly anomalies in text form: no problem, this offset can easily be computed by downloading the data into Excel or a similar spreadsheet guy. But I really lack any motivation to extract such data out of a 100 MB netcdf data base!

      On the other hand, if I generate for example a monthly time series for the Nino3+4 area (5S-5N 170W-120W) out of Roy Spencer’s 2.5 degree grid, I would be glad if it was possible to upload it as external data into WFT, instead of creating an Excel chart, printing it into a pdf file and uploading that file in jpeg or png form.

      Sure Paul will say ‘To implement at best 10 % of all extension wishes I would need to clone myself at least 10 times’.

      • barry says:

        If I care enough to match baselines, I just choose the baseline period for one data set and then chose the same period for another data set, copy it to Excel and average. The value obtained is the shift needed.

        If the baseline (eg, 1901-2000) doesn’t cover the other data (eg, satellite), I just pick mutual periods, average and then subtract to get the value needed for the shift.

        • Bindidon says:

          Oh barry…

          If the data is available as monthly anomalies in text form: no problem, this offset can easily be computed by downloading the data into Excel or a similar spreadsheet guy. But I really lack any motivation to extract such data out of a 100 MB netcdf data base!

          • barry says:

            I just import the text files into Excel. Takes a minute.

          • barry says:

            Oh, I see what you’re saying. I have access to all global temp data in text form, same with ENSO and sea ice and some other stuff. If you tell me what you’re looking for I may be able to point to a text format.

          • Bindidon says:

            I have access to all global temp data in text form…

            You think you have, don’t you, barry? How do you get e.g. monthly GISS temperature anomaly output for 64N-90N in text form?

          • barry says:

            I don’t think there is text form for monthly zonal, but you can get annual values for zonal.

            https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.txt

            But you don’t need to extract from the netcdf data base to get the baseline difference between GISS and some other baseline, just use the GISS global text data to discover that. Then you extract the regional/zonal data you need already knowing the offset.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          barry…”If the baseline (eg, 1901-2000) doesnt cover the other data (eg, satellite), I just pick mutual periods, average and then subtract to get the value needed for the shift”.

          How is that possible when the surface record has a baseline from 1950 – 1990 and the sat record is from 1980 – 2010? The surface record has already been tainted with the unrealistic baseline featuring the 1950s and 1960s, which were cooler.

          As John Christy has pointed out, the cooler decades accent warming in more recent decades by affecting the baseline.

          • barry says:

            I just explained how.

            You don’t understand baselines. Or anomalies. Or trends.

            Neither does Chiefio, who hilariously imagines that because there are fewer weather station data from cooler climes, that this raises the trend.

            I wonder if he ever learned what anomalies are.

          • barry says:

            As John Christy has pointed out, the cooler decades accent warming in more recent decades by affecting the baseline.

            The baseline is absolutely, positively, utterly irrelevant to the trend.

            But you don’t know why, do you?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            barry…”As John Christy has pointed out, the cooler decades accent warming in more recent decades by affecting the baseline”.

            The baseline is absolutely, positively, utterly irrelevant to the trend.

            But you dont know why, do you?”

            Obviously that was a typo, brain lock, or my fingers typing out of sync with my brain. I guess you are perfect and have never done that. I meant trend rather than baseline. Of course, now you won’t understand how cooler temperature in the beginning over the range could affect temperatures later on in the range.

            The problem with you number crunchers is that you have no idea what statistics theory is about, you simply find numbers and type them into a computer within understanding the context.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            barry…”You dont understand baselines. Or anomalies. Or trends.

            Neither does Chiefio, who hilariously imagines that because there are fewer weather station data from cooler climes, that this raises the trend”.

            From your failure to understand what I have tried to point out about baselines, anomalies, or trends, I’d say you are the one who is statistically-challenged.

            Your comment on chiefio relegates you to the statistical idiot category. If you have a field of statistical data points on a graph, and you remove a significant number of the cooler dots, what does that do to your best fit of the data when you draw a trend line?

            Here, try it.

            data sets 1)

            …………
            …….. hotter data
            ……

            ..
            . cooler data

            Where is your trend line? Somewhere between the top set and the bottom set, right, at some angle?

            now remove the cooler set.

            data set 2)

            …………
            ……. hotter data only
            ….

            Where is your trend line now?

            It has risen into the hotter data and it’s tilt has changed, become more shallow. You are not that stupid are you?

            Still hilarious???

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            barry…”I just explained how. You dont understand baselines. Or anomalies. Or trends”.

            No…it’s you who does not understand them and it’s a travesty that you think you do.

            Based on your explanation you claim you can simply take a range in two unrelated data sets and compare them. Anyone who tries this takes great pain to normalize the data first, otherwise it’s like comparing apples to oranges.

            You seem to think you can take the had.crut data set for example, with a baseline of 1950 – 1990 and compare that one to one with the UAH data set with a baseline from 1980 – 2010. The difference in baselines affects the data dramatically by offsetting the data points from the baseline. That affects the trend.

            Furthermore, the data has been acquired differently. The surface record uses thermometers that are read twice a day and averaged. The sats use a bulk retrieval system in one sweep of the scanner that gives a far more accurate representation than two a day, averaged thermometer readings. The sat coverage is 95% compared to the 30% surface coverage.

            Barry…you have been so egregiously wrong with other matters in physics, like your confusion over EM from a colder object warming a hotter object that I now suspect your understanding of statistics.

            I had a full year of intense, honours level probability and statistics drummed into my head at one time and other intensive course in calculus and engineering drawing. I was well schooled in visually interpreting graphs.

            You are still nattering about the 0.12C/decade trend of UAH, apparently thinking it indicates anthropogenic warming and that the trend is valid. There is a 19 year part of that trend which is a rewarming phase from volcanic aerosol cooling(below baseline) followed by a 15 year flat trend.

            You and your fellow alarmists don’t even begin to understand what I’m talking about. As I told you, UAH is compelled to throw their data into an algorithm and produce an overall trend. That’s how things are done in general science. However, no one is required to give a context and that’s why statistics can be used to misrepresent a situation.

            The UAH data cannot be reliably represented by a trend drawn as a best fit through the data. The only scientific representation would be using two trend lines: pre 1998 and post 1998. They represent entirely different contexts. Until you understand this stuff you are wasting your time and energy blindly tossing data into a calculator.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            barry…ps…do you understand that UAH and had.crut could have the same trends, by fluke, yet the trends could be unrelated?

            Context.

      • barry says:

        Paul also gives some baseline offsets at the bottom of this page:

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes

        2nd graph from bottom.

  46. WizGeek says:

    Why does a simple publication of temperature numbers incite a full-blown deluge of armchair alarmist and anti-alarmist posturing, conjecture, and beratement? It may be best to stand up your own WordPress blog as a means to declutter *this* blog.

    • Brad says:

      Agreed. Dr. Spencer’s blog devolves into histrionics and base accusations and all he did was post data.

    • Norman says:

      WizGeek

      What happens is most other blogs highly restrict the material that can be posted. Both sides. Skeptical Science bans most everyone who does not support the site conclusion. You cannot challenge points on that site for very long. Postma bans anyone who does not hold his view.

      So the different views come here and work to convince each other of their views. My view will stick with established science until a valid experiment can overturn hundreds of years of research on the heat exchange mechanisms. It seems Roy will tolerate these super long exchanges as long as people do not become too offensive.

      • Des says:

        His idea of “too offensive” is not evenly applied. He NEVER deletes a denier’s comment regardless of how offensive it is. Further, the threshold for what is considered inappropriate is MUCH lower when he is the target.

      • barry says:

        Roy actually banned a skeptic for spamming ‘dragonslayer’ rubbish too often. Otherwise, he pretty much deletes nothing.

    • barry says:

      Why does a simple publication of temperature numbers incite a full-blown deluge of armchair alarmist and anti-alarmist posturing, conjecture, and beratement?

      Why does a random commenter single out one group for bad behaviour and ignore the other group?

      Because the random commenter isn’t actually interested in decorum, but rather pipping for the tribe they belong to.

      • WizGeek says:

        @Barry: Did you miss the part about “alarmist and [ANTI_ALARMIST]”? That’s both groups, yes?

    • Bindidon says:

      WizGeek on December 5, 2017 at 9:53 AM
      Brad on December 5, 2017 at 10:30 AM

      If these comments disturb you: why don’t you create an own blog where they would not be permitted, instead of smugly teaching people about what’s good and what isn’t on a blog you after all are not the manager of?

      I personally have nothing against heavy but polite discussion about controversial matter, and it seems to me that Roy Spencer has a similar view. I guess that otherwise he would make his meaning about that more perceptible.

      What disturbs me is that instead of publishing really valuable contradiction, some ridiculous trolls call me an idiot or answer with ‘Hilarious! Pseudoscience!’ just because I write things which do not fit to their narrative.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        That’s hilarious, Bin.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…”What disturbs me is that instead of publishing really valuable contradiction, some ridiculous trolls call me an idiot …”

        I have done both. I have engaged you in intelligent debate when merited.

        However, when you continue to defend the chicanery of NOAA, after I present you with a direct link to their site, in which they admit to slashing 75% of their data, and when they use a 48% confidence levels to rate a year as the warmest, I can’t help but call you an idiot.

        I call myself an idiot when I have been that stupid and blind.

  47. Layman says:

    Great news! Things are dropping back down to normal. I have a feeling we’re moving back to pause territory again! I was worried that we were stepping up. Although months to come will determine if we are sliding back down to 2000 era temps, I’m hopeful.

    • Des says:

      You don’t determine this over mere months.

    • barry says:

      For the pause to return we need to slide back to temps as they were around 1994-1996. This needs to happen from next month, and stay that way until 2020. Then we’ll get a flat line. In the UAH record.

      • Harry Cummings says:

        Layman

        you are now on the receiving end of what’s known as the religion of climate change ….doesn’t take much does it

        Harry

      • barry says:

        No, I actually worked that out numerically. WUWT published it in an article earlier this year.

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/14/how-imminent-is-the-rss-pause-now-includes-january-and-february-data/

        I worked it out again last month, including the most recent data. For a flat line since 1998 to reappear by 2020, temps would have to progress as I said.

        If you have an alternative view, by all means present it. Or carry on with talk of religion. Whatever floats your boat.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          barry…”If you have an alternative view, by all means present it. Or carry on with talk of religion. Whatever floats your boat”.

          I took a look at the WUWT article and I find it far too analytical. I am very wary of in-depth statistical studies to prove a point.

          Your W4T graph of the RSS average shows 2008 above the baseline and 2016 well above 1998. According to UAH, 2008 was a very cold year with anomalies well below the baseline. All it would take is another year like that to pretty well even out the average and bring it closer to a flat trend again.

          I am not holding my breath, I just don’t think there is any proof that the warming is anthropogenic in nature. It all seems to revolve around ENSO and possibily as Tsonis et al 2007 claimed, other oscillations.

          Of course, if you believe there are anthropogenic influences all you’ll see is evidence of it.

        • barry says:

          It was fairly simple. Just run the trend to present in excel and then a little trial and error adding monthly temps to 2020 and voila. The result that gives a straight line since 1998 is a monthly average of -0.07 over two years.

          2008 annual average didn’t get that low, and even if it did you’d need 2 of them in a row from now until 2020 to get the flat line.

          The last 12 month period of average temps that low was May 1993 to Apr 1995. That’s what we’d need to see to get a flat line by 2020. Nothing tricky about it, just a simple linear regression, which is exactly what the original “pause” was based on. Apples and apples.

        • barry says:

          Your W4T graph of the RSS average shows 2008 above the baseline and 2016 well above 1998.

          Some months in 2008 were below the baseline, but not the annual average.

          2016 was higher than 1998 in RSS (v3 was used in that post). 2016 is higher than 1998 in UAH, too.

          http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1998

          Both peaked in 2016 about 0.1C higher than in 1998. Is there a problem with the UAH data?

        • barry says:

          “The last 12 month period of average temps that low was May 1993 to Apr 1995”

          Should be “the last 24 month period,” of course.

      • barry says:

        Specifically, for the global trend to go flat since 1998 by 2020, the average monthly UAH TLT temp from now to Dec 2019 would have to be no warmer than -0.07 C.

        Most recent 2-year period where temps averaged that low was May 1993 to Apr 1995.

        You can see what that looks like here:

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2017_v6-1.jpg

        • Layman says:

          Thanks Barry. When you put it that way, it does seem rather unlikely that original pause will return. Maybe a new pause from a higher baseline though.

        • barry says:

          There could be a century of short-term “pauses” over an overall warming trend. All you have to do is carefully pick your start/end points. You can already do that with last century. And there is a statistically significant pause from about 1940 to 1970 – the only statistically significant pause in the temp record. *

          A supermassive volcanic eruption in the next month or 4 could depress near-surface temps for the next couple of years to bring about a “pause” since 1998. Otherwise I agree that a return is highly unlikely.

          * By statistically significant, I mean that the uncertainty in the trend 1940 – 1970 was distinct from the previous and following long-term warming trend uncertainties. An actual pause that eclipsed the canonical 95% confidence limits on temp trends.

          • Bindidon says:

            A supermassive volcanic eruption…

            No thanks. Imagine a redo of something like Mt Samalas on Lombok in 1257…

            I can’t imagine anybody being bloody enough to hope for any pause resuming that way!

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            barry…”There could be a century of short-term pauses over an overall warming trend”.

            According to Akasofu, who thinks the majority of the warming is related to a re-warming from the Little Ice Age, the re-warming should be just about over, at 0.5C re-warming per century.

            There may be more warming in store but it should just about have leveled off.

          • Svante says:

            On Akasofu :
            all of these errors in a single study guarantees that its conclusions cannot be supported and, in fact, are demonstrably incorrect.

            http://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/1/2/76

  48. gbaikie says:

    An actual greenhouse is something that prevents convectional heat loss.
    Earth’s greenhouse is the troposphere.
    Wiki, troposphere:
    The troposphere is the lowest layer of Earth’s atmosphere, and is also where nearly all weather conditions take place. It contains approximately 75% of the atmosphere’s mass and 99% of the total mass of water vapor and aerosols. The average depths of the troposphere are 20 km (12 mi) in the tropics 17 km (11 mi) in the mid latitudes, and 7 km (4.3 mi) in the polar regions in winter.”

    So this big greenhouse unlike a small manmade greenhouse, has weather, though bigger manmade greenhouses can have a little bit of weather within them.

    So Earth has 10 tons of atmosphere per square meter, and 75%
    of that is 7.5 tons of air per square meter. And all this air must warm in order for the surface air to get warmer.
    It requires 1 joules to heat one gram of air by 1 K, Or
    1000 joules per kg and 1 million joules per ton.
    So needs 7.5 million joules to warm 7.5 tons of air per square by 1 C.

    So get a transparent box which is 20 km square, have one end open and put open end into the tropical ocean.
    If let air escape so box was 1/2 full of water or top was 10 km above sea level, it would float. Then if add air it would rise higher. If air inside the box was warmer than outside the box, it go higher without added air, and if colder it will fall without removing air from the box.
    So let’s add 200 meters to bottom of box so it could be at 20 km high and can go up and down depending on it’s air temperature inside the box as compared to outside the box.

    Now to be accurate, one would have determine the mass of the greenhouse structuce, but at this scale the massive if structure could tremendous and not make much difference- as has tremendous amount of buoyancy.
    But generally, there is 20,000 meter by 20,000 meter times 7.5 tons of air. And in terms of water buoyancy 20,000 meter by 20,000 times 1 ton per 1 meter depth of water.
    If air inside pushes water one meter down, it require 1/10 of 1 Atm added inside pressure, which lifts 20k x 20 x 1 tons which 400 million tonnes. And how does that compare to weight of structure. Say 10 kg per square meter: 400 million square meter times 5. Or 50 vs 1000. Or 1/200th of 1 meter of water depth is need to float structure. And mass was 10 times greater, still insignificant.
    And the mass of air is 7.5 times more the 1 meter depth of water 400 times 7.5 is 3000 million tonnes of air inside box. So it seems slight changes in air temperature will move box up and down by quite a bit. Or will warm enough air box could float like hot air balloon. But sucking water up, above sea level, there would massive amount of force to stop it from floating away.
    Anyhow box has this 200 meter foundation which allows box to go up and down and it’s also going to insulate inside water from outside water [down to about 200 meter depth].

    So with all that. Does air and water warm up in the tropical ocean?

    • gbaikie says:

      — Bindidon says:
      December 5, 2017 at 3:20 PM

      You cant view the troposphere as a greenhouse, as it is not closed on top.–

      One could have a greenhouse 20 km tall. Greenhouse increase air temperature by preventing convective heat loss and a 20 km elevation one doesn’t have convective heat loss- or the ceiling of greenhouse at 20 km elevation would not prevent convection heat loss.
      Or putting ceiling on it, doesn’t do anything, but I put one on it anyhow. Or whether it’s triple pane or thin plastic it wouldn’t make difference in terms of convectional heat loss.
      Whereas if greenhouse was only 10 km high, it would matter if ceiling had triple pane vs thin plastic as ceiling in term convection heat loss.

      “If there were no infrared-active gases in the atmosphere, i.e. if it would solely consist of nitrogen, oxygen and argon, all infrared emitted by Earth in response to Suns radiation would directly reach outer space: the atmospheric window would encompass the entire frequency band.

      How warm would it then be on global average at the surface, gbaikie?”

      In example given the cube is on the ocean, a problem could be if sealed, one could get too much vapor.
      But since it’s so large one could get cloud formation inside the cube. So one could ask would you get too much cloud or too much vapor, or both? Or neither.

      If put cube on land or seal bottom of cube on the ocean, one prevent having water vapor in the cube.
      The dry [or drier] air would be denser than tropical air surrounding it. The dry air would inhibit convection [or with ocean evaporating it increases convectional heat transfer. Or the lack of water vapor gives a dry lapse rate:
      “When the air contains little water, this lapse rate is known as the dry adiabatic lapse rate: the rate of temperature decrease is 9.8 C/km”- wiki

      And with a dry air lapse rate one lower the elevation of the cube and still have the same reduction of convective heat as it being at 20 km.

      • gbaikie says:

        Have 10 km cube, put dry air in it. The top of cube will be colder then the air above it. The top won’t have conventional
        heat loss, it would if anything have conventional heat gain from warmer air above it.

        • gbaikie says:

          Put dry air 10 km cube on Land- Sahara desert.
          Sahara desert has fairly dry air, but air in box can be drier.
          Or were air to cools below 0 C, you could have air dry enough to not get no dew/frost.

          So take cryogenic nitrogen which has less water in it, that normal cryogenic N2 has, or 99.9999% pure N2. Unlike normal N2 which is very cheap.
          Put it in box which on some flat part of desert. Instead ceiling going to have plastic bag, so warming and cooling of air, doesn’t explode/implode the box. So bag hangs down within box 1 km and with more air pressure, bag stick up the top and box [inflated] 1 km higher [11 km in total]. In addition we had emergency pressure release if over or under pressure exceeds .5 psi. Add N2 so it’s 30 C.
          So should lapse rate of 9.8 C per 1000 meter or at 10 km it should be 30 C – 98 K so -68 C. And Sahara desert if at 30 C should have higher temperature at 10 km than -68 C.
          And desert air at surface during the day may warm to 40 C or warmer, and during nite the air might cool to 0 C or cooler.

          If air in box at surface cools to 0 C, the air at 10 km would be -98 C in the box.

          It generally seems to me that desert air will not cool the air in the box, and instead will warm the air in the box by some amount. Or box will be unlike a normal greenhouse which doesn’t warm from the air surrounding it, and instead is warmed by sunlight to be warmer than surrounding air.

          But I don’t think the surrounding air would warm the box by very much due to it’s large size. And the air inside box will mostly be warmed by sunlight.
          If imagine the box would be warmed by surrounding air by a lot, we could add “triple pane windows”. But think it’s a minor effect.

          Now I think land is cooling effect and ocean is warming effect. So I think ocean is making desert air cool less during night [have warmer air temperatures]- or the ocean creates Earth’s average global air temperature. But of course the desert causes it’s air temperature to warm to higher daytime temperature.
          And the box would get less of this ocean warming effect during the night- because it’s insulated/isolated from it.

          Or roughly the cube is an anti-greeenhouse, and it will be slightly cooler- though not a freezer- or couldn’t make it a lot colder if add “triple panes”. [Though the dry air would feel a lot cooler- or such air is much drier than anyone has ever experienced- it’s dangerously dry.]
          Oh, yeah, what’s lowest humidity:
          “The concept of zero percent relative humidity air devoid of water vapor is intriguing, but given Earth’s climate and weather conditions, it’s impossible. ”
          “The world’s lowest recorded relative humidity value occurred at Coober Pedy in the South Australia desert when the temperature was 93 degrees and the dew point was minus 21 degrees producing a relative humidity of 1 percent.”
          http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-12-16/news/ct-wea-1216-asktom-20111216_1_relative-humidity-zero-dew-point

          If the 93 degrees temperature lowers the relative humidity
          increases – or at 93 degrees that still a lot of water in the air. Or higher the air temperature increase capacity of air to hold water and it’s only 1% of it’s capacity at the 93 F temperature.

  49. Bindidon says:

    You can’t view the troposphere as a greenhouse, as it is not closed on top.

    If there were no infrared-active gases in the atmosphere, i.e. if it would solely consist of nitrogen, oxygen and argon, all infrared emitted by Earth in response to Sun’s radiation would directly reach outer space: the atmospheric window would encompass the entire frequency band.

    How warm would it then be on global average at the surface, gbaikie?

    • Ball4 says:

      “How warm would it then be on global average at the surface”</I

      A little above ~255K. That atm. would still have a (low) emissivity. The emission spectrum of the atm. would shift to regions for which it is nonzero as it would have a temperature, would not be completely transparent. N2, O2, Ar are all (weak) absorbers.

      • Ball4 says:

        Better: “How warm would it then be on global average at the surface”

        A little above ~255K. That atm. would still have a (low) emissivity. The emission spectrum of the atm. would shift to regions for which it is nonzero as it would have a temperature, would not be completely transparent. N2, O2, Ar are all (weak) absorbers.

      • Bindidon says:

        Ball4 on December 5, 2017 at 3:34 PM

        Thanks for answering, even if I would have preferred gbaikie doing.

        1. N2, O2, Ar are all weak absorbers.

        If you compare, by taking their relative abundance into account, their absorp-tivity with that of H2O / CO2 / CH4 / N2O etc etc using SpectralCalc’s line editor, you see that it is zero for Ar and N2, and 10,000 times smaller for O2 (not O3).

        Thus absorp-tion should be negligible, isn’t it?

        2. A little above ~255K

        That would mean an atmosphere solely consisting of infrared-inactive gases would give us the same surface temperature as if there was no atmosphere at all.

        But would that not mean that no conduction / convection processes would take place starting directly at the surface?

        Hard to imagine.

        • Ball4 says:

          “SpectralCalcs line editor”

          I’ve been informed there is no data for Ar in there, is there also no data for N2? 10,000x smaller than what for O2?

          Again, because an Ar, N2, O2 atm. at 1atm. surface pressure would have a temperature, it will have a non-zero emissivity meaning if the ideal transparent atm. would be at ~255K the real Ar,N2,O2 atm. would be driven slightly above this in global median T. How much would depend on how much the resultant atm. emissivity is above zero as there would be non-zero atm. opacity from these absorbers.

          The Ar, N2, O2 fluid would still be warmed from below in a gravity field so there would be convection but I would guess not very windy. Of course there would be conduction at the surface contact.

          • Ball4 says:

            2012 paper on O2, N2 (weak) contributions to the natural GHE.

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051409/abstract

          • Bindidon says:

            Here is a chart with SpectralCalc plots with linear scaling by atmospheric abundance from 0.7 to 40 microns for H2O, CO2, O2, N2:

            http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1512517010910.jpg

            If you repeat the job using only N2/O2, you see minuscule lines for O2, and none for N2.

            Indeed, my bad: Ar is not present. But I read (where?) such atoms absorb/reemit nothing.

          • Bindidon says:

            Thanks for the paper, Ball4!

            Indeed, collision-induced warming of these molecules certainly will play a role. In theory.

            The article is behind paywall, but already from the abstract you can see that we are here in a range of about 15% of OLR reduction by CH4.

            Here is the same SpectraCalc output as for H2O, CO2, O2, N2, but now for CH4:

            http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1512518305780.jpg

            If you now compare the intensities, you see immediately that H2O / CO2 absorp-tion/emission gives a factor about 10^4 higher than CH4 and thus for the effect of N2 / O2 collision-induced warming.

          • Ball4 says:

            “and none for N2”

            There should be more for N2 than O2; as you seem interested possibly dig into details, discover why and learn more about the program. I’ve never been interested in it.

            If Ar has a temperature, the atoms absorb. Noble gas spectra have been measured, again more research could be a learning experience. Who knows – you might become the ready expert when an exoplanet with Ar atm. is discovered.

          • Ball4 says:

            “The article is behind paywall..”

            Sometimes a little google-fu finds it stored somewhere free. Heck, couple days ago, I was over at the local college library looking up a somewhat ancient, then more modern paper. Ref. Librarians are eager to apply their craft and of course live for the challenge of opportunity to do so.

            And you know what, they gave me a guest pass to the computer system, showed me how to download the pdf off the electronic journal, and…AND email it to myself. All free!

          • Bindidon says:

            Ball4 on December 5, 2017 at 6:07 PM

            If Ar has a temperature, the atoms absorb.

            That, Ball4, I don’t understand.

            Absorp-tion / emission is, as I have understood until now, not a matter of temperature but of atomic / molecular structure defining electronic, vibrational and rotational transition states.

            But as I read in addition, electronic transitions request photons of much higher energy and hence frequency than IR.

            They therefore play a role only in incoming solar radiation.

            If my assumption is wrong, please show me a valuable source contradicting me…

          • Ball4 says:

            As always, I recommend Bohren 1998 text. In this case, Chapter 3. It used to be free on the internet but I think the copyright thugs got there first. Sometimes amazon will have the pages you need.

          • Bindidon says:

            What I read is, among other contributions, this one:

            http://tinyurl.com/y89x4kka

          • Ball4 says:

            That’s a pretty good resource. The author is unclear of the source of emissivity which is always measured.

            Bohren 1998, 3 will be better as he deep dives into the classical and QM details of how atoms (like Ar) were found to emit and absorb in a conversational style & provides his source material cites. Here’s some logic clipped from your link to focus on:

            “The Planck explanation of the continuous spectra of the blackbody…when properly extended, the theory of quantization also led to the understanding of the line spectra of the atom…More generally, however, the absorbing power does not become zero between lines because of the overlapping effects of many lines.”

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          binny…”1. N2, O2, Ar are all weak absorbers”.

          At IR frequencies. They are not weak absorbers or emitters in the proper frequency range.

          The heat transfer equation: q = e s (Th^4 Tc^4) Ac does not specify any particular molecule or frequency, it applies to all molecules. The only thing governing emissions/absorp-tion is temperature.

          N2/O2 are always absorbing/emitting in the atmosphere, just not a whole lot in the IR band. The AMSU units on satellites depend on O2 emissions in the microwave band.

          There is also the emissivity factor, e, which is pre-calculated for substance based on the emissivity of an ideal black-body being 1. That should govern the relative amount radiated by a substance but the overall radiation is based only on the temperature difference between the surface of the substance, A, and the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            the heat loss equation should read:

            q = e s (Th^4 minus Tc^4) Ac

            I don’t know why WordPress is so lame that it loses minus signs.

            And, yes, it is a heat loss equation, not a heat transfer equation as I incorrectly indicated.